[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
It depends on the local issues. A single spec for a
new technology might indicate a proprietary development
ripe for IP exploitation. If it works, why not? Not
everything is in the commons and that assumption of
community property for all things web is one way to
sort out the naive and inexperienced including those
who offer up single spec/single use specifications
labeled or processed as standards. Respect for IP
is the way forward. IP keiretsu in the form of consortia
managed royalty free contributions will work both
for ensuring that submissions are vetted under
participation agreements, and for keeping as much
IP as is workable in the commons of jointly indemified
contributions.
People make assumptions. That is how they learn. If
they don't, they fail. Life and death in the ecosystem.
We got here because too many stopped focusing on developing
software and started playing the standards game. I blame
the W3C squarely for that. This community made its own
problems and this community will have to face up to the
job of fixing the mythInformation it created.
len
From: Hunsberger, Peter [mailto:Peter.Hunsberger@STJUDE.ORG]
Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com> writes:
>
> +1
>
> except competing specifications are fine. for new
> technology. competing standards are bad. they codify
> practice as you say.
If true, then a single spec. would be even worse; people would be even
more likely to assume it is the only way to do things...
|
