Given the fact that the W3C is basically an Industry Association and not
really an organization in the interest of the general public the draft seems
eminently reasonable to me.
It even has some good points. A member can patent-lock large sections of an
emerging standard. However, if they don't want to have that membership
challenged they must give reasonable license terms to other members.
Even without the policy there is nothing to keep a non-member from totally
locking in an emerging standard with patents. There is also nothing that
prevents a current member from patenting W3C standards out the wazoo then
withdrawing their membership.
There is no reason to expect organizations like to W3C to favor the
liberty-ware peons. They best way for liberty-ware to deal with proprietary
standards is to get there first, or best, or de facto and basically turn the
free-ware version *into* the standard.
On Monday 01 October 2001 01:03, you wrote:
> Am 30. Sep, 2001 schwätzte Brian Cluff so:
> > There is an article over at slashdot about the w3c considering the use of
> > patented technologies in future protocols.
> >
> > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/30/1454216&mode=thread
> >
> > Looks like this is the last day to get in any comments on the proposed
> > plan, so if you value being able to use konqueror, mozilla or any other
> > browser that can't afford to pay a license fee to be able to browse
> > future web pages.
> >
> > Please see the article on the link above for details and places to send
> > comments.
>
> After hitting LinuxToday and slashdot the proprosal got over 700 messages
> today. They got less than 100 in the two weeks prior to that. Goes to show
> that we can respond when necessary. It might also show that we don't have a
> life if we can drum up that much on a Sunday :). I was even lamer because I
> was working and didn't get time to do anything during the day even though I
> knew about it :(.
>
> It's not over. Maybe the dramatic response will actually get them to
> reconsider trying to slide it through without giving opportunity for true
> public feedback. If so, we need to have real critiques and examples to
> offer up.
>
> Check posts from:
>
> Alan Cox
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Sep/0131.h
>tml
>
> Jeremy Allison
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Sep/0033.h
>tml
>
> Kevin O'Conner
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Sep/0591.h
>tml
>
> EBo
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Sep/0700.h
>tml
>
> George Toft
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Sep/0540.h
>tml
>
> Though he wrote a good response, George unfortunately missed a grand
> opportunity to mention both Anthem and Rand in the same message ;-).
> Granted, Ayn Rand seemed to be into keeping things from the public and only
> making them available to those who were good enough to understand their
> value.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Sep/0746.h
>tml Adam Warner posted that message he received from Janet Daly of the W3C
> in response to the deluge of responses today. She points out that they need
> concrete critiques. Unfortunately time was a little short to read and
> comprehend the whole thing.
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Sep/0750.h
>tml Branden Robinson got in a point about the amount of response in such a
> short time.
>
> After the buzzer, according to the W3C archive, we have posts from:
>
> Bruce Perens
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0027.h
>tml
>
> rms ( written from Flagstaff :)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0018.h
>tml
>
> and a good email from Karsten M. Self about the response and extending the
> time for public comment. He mentions reasons why it seems the W3C didn't
> advertise this proposal very well. We need to remind our community, though,
> that we have to be vigilent and find these types of things on our own as
> well.
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0025.h
>tml
>
> ciao,
>
> der.hans
(text/plain)