[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: David Brownell <email@example.com>, Jeff Lowery <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:43:49 -0500
That's just Spy Vs Spy, David. It is what it is.
... if you want to debate what is is, join the
ranks of the recently umemployed. :-)
I'm implying nothing. I'm saying it bold and
loud: the W3C is not chartered nor entitled to
represent public interest. If they do that,
t is commendable. It is commendable when the
Boy Scouts do it. If they accept non-RF
conditions for their specifications, they
represent their own members, but the public will
have little or nothing to say about that
unless asked. The public comment page was
created and thousands have responded. What
the W3C chooses to do next, the members choose.
People can't lay this at Berners-Lee's feet.
The membership has to decide what it is there
to do and do that. He has a voice and I suspect
is using it persuasively. Given his personal
history and on the record statements, I'd be
quite surprised if he favors non-RF RAND, but
I think he would also be quite derelict in
his role of W3C Director to fail to acknowledge
the need for a policy, so one will be issued.
From: David Brownell [mailto:email@example.com]
> Pretense and policy are different texts.
> There has been an enormous pretense over the last
> ten years and we are now facing the problems of
> thinking such pretense is policy. It isn't.
Or perhaps the issue is really that Certain Organizations
are trying to make their policies supplant the policies
of other organization ... the pretense isn't necessarily
what you're implying it is.