• To: 'Elliotte Rusty Harold' <elharo@m...>
• Subject: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:36:41 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

You can implement it, yes; you can't change the design 
or adapt the specification.  They gave up no rights; 
they don't charge you to implement it.  Quite.  And 
it isn't submitted as a specification for all to 
comment on, change, or otherwise dink with.  Java 
is an even more restricted case.  Of course, if Java were 
submitted to the W3C as a specification candidate, 
would the Java programmers be happy about that? 
Interestingly, both Adobe and Sun make the same 
case for not doing that; they say that they can 
maintain and evolve it better than open standards 
groups can.  So maybe some fundamental Internet 
technologies are better handled as proprietary 
applications?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...]

At 12:43 PM -0600 1/17/03, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:


>As for market amplification, that's hard to predict.
>Why hasn't Adobe given up the rights to PDF

They have. PDF is freely implementable, and is in fact freely implemented.

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Adam Bosworth Article - what does "directaccess"m ean?
• Next by Date: Re: ConciseXML syntax and compatibility
• Previous by thread: Re: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Next by thread: RE: Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: more pate nt fun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread