RE: don't lump the W3C with OASIS and WS-I on IPR

To: 'Bob Glushko' <glushko@S...>, "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
Subject: RE: don't lump the W3C with OASIS and WS-I on IPR
From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:10:29 -0500

Play the video

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

From: Bob Glushko [mailto:glushko@S...]
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.

http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~glushko/WhatBushAccomplished.gif

Prev by Date: RE: xsl file problem
Next by Date: Handling very large instance docs
Previous by thread: xsl file problem
Next by thread: Handling very large instance docs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

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

RSS 2.0
Atom 0.3

Stylus Studio has published XML-DEV in RSS and ATOM formats, enabling users to easily subcribe to the list from their preferred news reader application.

Stylus Studio Sponsored Links are added links designed to provide related and additional information to the visitors of this website. they were not included by the author in the initial post. To view the content without the Sponsor Links please click here.

XML Editor - Download a 15 Day Free Trial Now >

See What's New in Stylus Studio >

Buy Stylus Studio - XML Editor - Now >