[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: Ann Navarro <ann@w...>
• To: Daniel.Veillard@i..., "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 12:09:41 -0500

At 05:34 PM 1/11/01 +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote:

>   If you think that the "homework" is just to collect prior,
>then it's probably something which could be done within W3C
>(directly by the staff or by a public call for prior art).
>But the legal action is where the problem might get solved
>and is an expensive (money, time, human, ...) process. I don't
>think W3C has enough resources (money, time, human, ...) to
>follow this path. And who else would take this task ?

The W3C has made calls for prior art to fight patent assertions in the 
past, I wouldn't expect that policy to change. With all respect to Eve, 
Sun's "offer" for the licensing is inappropriate in an consortium-based 
standards body, and should not attempt to force submissions of what 
otherwise could be true IP of other companies into the open-source space.

I would certainly lobby for a rejection of any document containing such a 
clause.

Ann
---
Ann Navarro, Author and Chief Geek
WebGeek, Inc. http://www.webgeek.com
Now Available! - XHTML By Example -
http://www.webgeek.com/books/xhtmlbyexample/

• 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