[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] Cutting special deals for open source developers --noway!
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Jonathan Borden <email@example.com>,Jonathan Robie <firstname.lastname@example.org>,"Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 12:33:59 -0500
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>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"
>not mean merely what the WG member happens to know, rather what the
>Ok, so perhaps this is your bottom line. If you aren't looking to the W3C
>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?
Maybe ISO should be asked about that. We are starting to see five years
of lag in the W3C specs, so the ISO provisions for "time" aren't odious.
The processes are sound and involve national bodies that legitimately
represent public interests, so the empowerment issues are sound. It
has often been suggested that ISO could work as the W3C's partner and
that has worked in some cases. A review of the successful cases could
be made and a strong and reliable partnership worked out. My guess is
this would affect the W3C processes and policies more than ISO and that
could be a good thing. Note that ISO meetings aren't open to the
public any more than the W3C is. There are issues.
The W3C patent draft is based on ISO policy, so this doesn't solve that
issue. I don't think there is a solution in the case of exceptional
technologies other than to find a different technology or to accept the
costs or the RF offer. There is no way around the patent laws. It will
ultimately come down to the intentions of the patent owners.