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

Re: RAND issues

• From: David Brownell <david-b@p...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:48:47 -0700

> I think that the W3C should adopt a policy of involving itself
> only with RF patents, recognize that this is difficult and
> complicated, and just deal with it.  

A lot of the comments I read on the W3C patent-policy list
made exactly this point. I strongly agree with the goal of having
all W3C specifications be free of licensing fees.

Though when I read that TR, I had a sense of dissonance
with their usage of the term "Royalty Free".  I'm curious
whether anyone else's experience with contracts matches
that usage.  In my experience:

    - Royalty == per-unit fees, often a function of volume
    - Royalty-Free == hefty up-front fees, volume-neutral
    - Zero-Cost == no money changes hands

That W3C TR was the first place I've _ever_ seen the
term "Royalty Free" used to mean "Zero Cost".  Usually
the logic has gone like: "We expect too much volume to
submit to a royalty schedule, so let's buy out of royalty
streams by paying more money up-front with a Royalty
Free license."

Given that, hearing the Free Software (and Open Source:)
advocates lobby for "RF" licensing, the only alternative
identified by W3C, gives me the willies.  Hefty up-front
fees are as bad as Royalties.  But "ZC" is fine.

Is there some sort of semantic game-playing here, or is
this just a case where different groups of lawyers mean
different things by "Royalty Free"?  And if the latter,
shouldn't W3C use a less ambiguous term?

- Dave

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: RAND issues
    • From: Don Park <donpark@d...>

• References:
  • RAND issues
    • From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>

• Prev by Date: RE: RAND issues
• Next by Date: RE: more on "subelement signicance"
• Previous by thread: RAND issues
• Next by thread: RE: RAND issues
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread