[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
RIght
on both points. The W3C fought to get RF as the mainstay
of
their IP policy with the necessary caveat that if there was no other way, they
could
accept an encumbered specification once it finally understood the
environment it brought into being. ISO, a real standards
organization
by any
definition, will accept encumbered IP. That is why I think the
community
if not
the industry should create definitions for terms such as standard and
specification that reflect all of the dimensions we have been
discussing. Because
the
press does abuse these terms, abuses the history of the development,
and
tends towards persons over events, it is up to the professionals and
laity
alike to create definitions that fit the processes we know to be both
effective and ethically persuasive.
The
standards organizations and the IP keiretsu can work together under
such
understandings, but for this to be effective, we have do diminish such
terms
as "killer app" which do not reflect the realities of technical ecosystems
in
environments designed by intension for
integration.
Is
this level of maturity achievable with open and inclusive policies for
participation? As I said, I've no tears for what is happening
now because
too
many of us here had a hand in creating this environment. I do
applaud those who will now take the time to fix what can be
fixed.
Thanks
for taking the time to comment. Your interview is exactly the
right
thing at exactly the right time.
len
I think that Martin
Lamonica got more things right with this interview than any one I've ever
done, and I especially enjoyed the fact that he let me blame reporters
for abusing "standard" in place of "specification."
But I do want to
correct one thing that I don't think I said exactly the way he reports it
here. I do think it is fair to say that neither OASIS, W3C, nor
WS-I are standards organizations according to the definition I advanced
here. But I don't think it is fair to lump the W3C in with WS-I on
either openness or IP terms, and I'd hate for people to make that
inference. The W3C worked very hard to put a royalty-free policy
in place while OASIS and WS-I have aggressively resisted one.
And
of course, as I pointed out, being a "real" standards body doesn't
imply that you have a reasonable IP policy either or an acceptable level of
openness.
.gif
| 
