[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] Cutting special deals for open source developers --noway!
- From: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>
- To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,Jonathan Robie <email@example.com>,"Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:50:21 -0400
> What about Sun, Jonathan? Did RF legitimize a bad patent and did everyone
> simply lay down because of RF? XPointer is still encumbered. Apparently,
> so is SVG? What is to be done? Would it not have been better to have a
> policy in place before Adobe quietly tightened a leash around SVG?
Yeah, well I've made my views on the XPointer issue known and the archives
can be consulted. The issues:
1) The W3C did not legitimize Sun's patent. Sun took unalateral action.
2) Even though my personal view is that this patent is riddled with prior
art, I also don't feel, given Sun's public statement, that I am encumbered
by the patent in any practical way.
3) The policy should be simply that every W3C member
organization -particularly- WG members _must_ identify any _known_ current
or future IPR encumbrances on the technologies being discussed. "Known" does
not mean merely what the WG member happens to know, rather what the
The policy should stress disclosure, and let the WG deal with the need for
> >We really really need to think about what ought to
> >and what ought not become a standard.
> I agree. Cherry picking projects better, ensuring that all precautions
> are taken, inquiries made, and responses understood in advance of
> work is the norm for standards work. It isn't the norm for the W3C
> process and several expensive and excellent pieces of work are now
> That tells me we should also look very critically at bodies that have
> it upon themselves to create standards and examine their credibility.
> to provide policy that would be considered the norm for other bodies that
> successfully do that work does not add to their credibility. Beyond
> we have to look
> at the community being represented and inquire into its rights and claims.
> The W3C is not a body that represents public interest. It represents
> commercial entities. The nature, powers, rights and restrictions of such
> entities scopes the definitions of the products it produces. I do not
> think the W3C is a credible standards body because a standard, in my
> opinion, reflects and protects public interests, not private interests.
> The W3C is a specification body and in that role reflects the interests of
> its members adequately. If it stumbles over a patent, it affects the
> commercial entities. Standards should be sought elsewhere. Given
> that specifications can become standards, the cooperation of the
> W3C with legitimate public standards bodies is very necessary.
Ok, so perhaps this is your bottom line. If you aren't looking to the W3C to
provide standards, then there is no need for it to promote RF. ISO has
really dropped the ball in the Internet arena, does that leave the IETF?