[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: Tim Bray [mailto:tbray@textuality.com]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>> I would really like to hear Dave's position
>> on all of this.
>Gimme a break. Nobody has ever suggested that Dave hasn't been up-front
>about all this; check out scripting.com. Furthermore, if you check out
>Sam Ruby's space at intertwingly.net, and what I've had to say at
>www.tbray.org/ongoing, plus Mark Pilgrim's history of how we got here at
>diveintomark.org, you will discover that rarely has any piece of
>microhistory been so transparent. Draw your own conclusions. -Tim
I will, but you have to admit using those sources is
a lot like trying to decide a case by reading
the newspaper reports about it. Let me try to
summarize what I'm seeing based on the public
and private email so far and please tell me if
the points are right even if my inferences are
mistaken or simply, point of view:
1. Netscape originated RSS in some form. Userland
picked up the ball and ran with it.
2. Userland has controlled the editing of the specification
and does (?) own a copyright on that.
3. Userland has been reluctant to enable a process by
which non-Userland contributors could make decisions
about the contents of that, reserving to itself the
perogative to decide what is in and what is not.
4. The non-Userland contributors have come to consensus
that it is time for the specification to evolve and
refuse to work with the copyright owner of the currently
authoritative specification to make that happen given
a perception and a history that implies the evolution
will not occur in a timely manner or in accordance
with the consensus. (Let's skip the personalities
here for a moment. I don't think not liking or
liking dave's style should be the issue.)
Umm... isn't that pretty much what the SGML ERB did?
Many could propose but only the self-selected group
could dispose and decide. ISO had the copyrights for
ISO 8879, but XML was created as a subset and the
normative reference maintained. The end result was a
specification that is a subset of an international
standard but is itself the property of the consortium.
Will the approach you advocate result in:
1. Ownership and control of the specification by a
consortium or private interests. (I note you suggest
the IETF and for the reasons you give, I agree.)
Sun announced Java and promised it would become an
open specification and a standard. Only after it
was adopted did they reverse that strategy and hold
on to the brand. Subsequent suits against MS have
enforced the brand but failed to make it legally
required for MS to distribute the product. Has
this been a beneficial approach? Cui bono?
2. Certain domination of the product market by
IBM?
len
|
