RE: Cutting special deals for open source developers --noway!
-----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...] >3) The policy should be simply that every W3C member >organization -particularly- WG members _must_ identify any _known_ current >or future IPR encumbrances on the technologies being discussed. "Known" does >not mean merely what the WG member happens to know, rather what the >organization knows. I agree, >Ok, so perhaps this is your bottom line. If you aren't looking to the W3C to >provide standards, then there is no need for it to promote RF. ISO has >really dropped the ball in the Internet arena, does that leave the IETF? Maybe ISO should be asked about that. We are starting to see five years of lag in the W3C specs, so the ISO provisions for "time" aren't odious. The processes are sound and involve national bodies that legitimately represent public interests, so the empowerment issues are sound. It has often been suggested that ISO could work as the W3C's partner and that has worked in some cases. A review of the successful cases could be made and a strong and reliable partnership worked out. My guess is this would affect the W3C processes and policies more than ISO and that could be a good thing. Note that ISO meetings aren't open to the public any more than the W3C is. There are issues. The W3C patent draft is based on ISO policy, so this doesn't solve that issue. I don't think there is a solution in the case of exceptional technologies other than to find a different technology or to accept the costs or the RF offer. There is no way around the patent laws. It will ultimately come down to the intentions of the patent owners. len
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format