[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
> We know that RF has worked in a set of limited cases and
> mostly for core technologies or loss leaders.
This stuff can be spun all sorts of ways, of course. We know that it's
worked for the web so far.
> We don't know if RAND limits customer choice.
Sure we do. If open source and small vendors can't afford the RAND
licensing fees -- and by definition some development community will not
be able to afford the fees -- then the set of vendors who could
*possibly* implement a RAND standard is less then the set of vendors who
could *possibly* implement an RF standard. How can that not be true.
> This depends on whether or not alternatives exist which
> are reasonably close in capability
Irrelevant if the RAND standards are baked into standards.
Yes, some technologies might not be brought forward in RF that would be
brought forward in RAND. Given the success of the Web so far, I can
live with that. There's something to be said for an organization that
specifies standards that can be implemented and sold by anyone. The
RAND folks can create their own consortia as they've done in the past;
they don't need the W3C to promulgate their IP revenue streams.
/r$
|
