[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: RAND issues
> 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
|
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
|