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

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]

>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
>organization knows.

I agree,

>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?

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.

len