RE: [xml-dev] Cutting special deals for open source developers --noway!

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Then I think our only point of disagreement is the flexibility 
for an exceptional circumstance in which the technology is so 
compelling, it is in the public interest or in this case, the 
interests of the W3C membership to accept the encumbrance as 
the cost of acquiring access to the technology.

That should clearly be an exception and the policy must 
reflect this and provide a means to ensure it is strictly 
followed.  How to do this is problematic, but I agree that 
unless one can be sure the person in the next seat isn't 
"ripping me off as I work openly", I'm not likely to have 
beer with them after the gig.  Unfortunately, there are 
those that can and have done so and we should not be 
cherry about that.   Where W3C offers a sound policy, 
the Miller Time quotient goes up.

If after much discussion and wrangling, those who 
have to decide cannot find a way to better the quality 
of Miller Time, then the only recourse is to set the 
policy as you say:  no encumbered technology.  That 
will also have side effects and they may be as Tim said, 
"reasonable" if only because they are unavoidable.  

Then community norms will come into play.  We can say 
this is the case, but informal norms by definition are 
not policy driven.  They are karma.   Karma is not 
justice; simply irrevocable like lighting a match 
in a room full of pure oxygen.

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Robie [mailto:jonathan.robie@softwareag.com]

I agree that formal norms are important. These formal norms should require 
that WG participants agree to make any IPR necessary for implementing a 
standard available. The only part of the RAND policy that I disagree with 
is that I believe that IPR actually needed to implement a standard should 
be available without cost.