[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0

• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• To: Daniel.Veillard@i...
• Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 18:54:19 +0100

Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 
>   As a free software implementor, I read Sun's terms
> and while I disagree with the fact that they were granted
> this patent, their condition were fine by me. It is
> very clear that they cannot sue me for my libxml XPointer
> implementation.
>   You may have others needs, but for XPointer implementation
> itself the term emitted by sun were fine. What point is
> blocking you ?

I am not a lawyer and I don't know what is the exact implication of
these statements,  I find weird the very first sentence of the license
[1] :

"By receiving and/or implementing the XPointer Specification, You
acknowledge and agree to be bound by the following terms and
conditions:"

strengthened by chapter 4.:

"   4.  The term of this Agreement shall begin on the date that You
download or otherwise receive the XPointer Specification and shall
extend through the last date on which a Patent expires."

This is leaving me with the feeling that by the simple fact of browsing
the W3C spec (something I usually do without calling my lawyer) I become
bounded to Sun's conditions.

Chapter 3 is a potential issue for commercial developers:

"   3.  You agree to provide documentation of any Modification to W3C no
later than the first date on which such Modification is made available
to others, including but not limited to the first date on which such
Modification is made available to others through alpha distributions or
distributions under obligations of confidentiality (the Available
Date)." 

Does that mean that software vendors will have to provide documentation
of their products implementing XPointer to W3C before they go alpha ?

If the W3C finds it useful, they should ask it for the other
specifications as well: why does they need Sun to ask it ?

And chapter 5 looks like a joke:

"   5.  In no event shall Sun or You be obligated to extend the covenant
not to sue granted here under to any product not incorporating a fully
compliant implementation of the XPointer Specification, or to that
portion of a product not incorporating a fully compliant implementation
of the XPointer Specification regardless of whether a fully compliant
implementation of the XPointer Specification was incorporated in another
portion of that product."

Does it mean that if I (or Microsoft) develop an implementation that is
not 100% compliant then Sun can sue us ?

Looks like a very nice way to motivate software developers to be
compliant !

Does the W3C plan to expend this to other recommendations ?

Eric

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-linking-comments/2000OctDec/0092.html
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       Dyomedea                    http://dyomedea.com
http://xmlfr.org         http://4xt.org              http://ducotede.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: "Thomas B. Passin" <tpassin@h...>

• References:
  • RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
    • From: Daniel Veillard <Daniel.Veillard@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Next by Date: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Previous by thread: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Next by thread: Re: (Second) Last Call for XPointer 1.0
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread