[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] More patent funnies!
- From: David Brownell <email@example.com>
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 12:44:41 -0700
Nicely put! Also, something can't be "vendor neutral" when
it promotes the interest of one vendor (a patent-holder) over
another, or one class of vendors (closed-source) over another
(free software or open source); neither can such outcomes be
part of an "industry consensus".
Saying that this is stuff W3C should NOT promote doesn't mean
that it can't be promoted in other circles.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ancona" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] More patent funnies!
> In addition, W3C at least claims to represent interests broader than simply the
> competitive goals of its members. Quoting from its website: "W3C, a
> vendor-neutral organization, promotes interoperability by designing and
> promoting open (non-proprietary) computer languages and protocols that avoid
> the market fragmentation of the past. This is achieved through industry
> consensus and encouraging an open forum for discussion." By definition,
> patented technologies are proprietary, and having the W3C "designing and
> promoting" them risks leading to the kind of fragmentation that the W3C was
> created to avoid.
>  http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Points/