Randall, Randall Parker wrote: > > Vincent, > > Have you seen this? > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0555.html >
Yes, I have seen this and I have also seen Chris Lilley's answer: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpolicy-comment/2001Oct/0680.html and the thread that follows. have you read it? Also, have you read the responses the W3C posted to the comments on the patent policy framework document, (These links where in the email your responded to) http://www.w3.org/ http://www.w3.org/2001/10/patent-response I think these sources provide answers to your questions(and I do not want to try and paraphrase. I think it is better to go to the source and read them carefully). It is important for everyone to make his/her own judgement on the question and I think that making a judgement takes reviewing the current documents, understand the situation for SVG (see the SVG IPR statement) and understand the situation for other open source projects and RFCs/recommendations. As I pointed out earlier, I believe the issue being discussed is not specific to SVG and Batik but is a generic issue of implementations of recommendations/standards/RFC with regards to patents. Btw, I am not sure what you mean by the term 'competing open source standards'. There are RFCs/Recommendations/etc. and there are open source implementations, but I am not sure what you mean by open source standards. It is important to make the distinction between the format specification (e.g., the SVG recommendation) and implementations (e.g., open source projects, products, etc..). We are talking about two different things. So are you talking about competing formats for SVG or competing implementations for Batik? If you were alluding to an alternate non-proprietary format for vector graphics (with a better description of the intellectual property situation?) I am not sure what you have in mind. Regards, Vincent. > IMO, at a very minimum if a standard depends on particular patents then the W3C >should make a rule that it will NOT ever release a recommendation unless all patents >applicable to it are > listed in advance along with the RAND/RF status of each applicable patent. > > Also, if the W3C consortium goes thru with this policy of allowing RAND patents as >necessary to implement W3C standards then the licensing terms for those patents >should be required to > be in public view. > > Frankly, I think that the W3C is making a huge mistake here. Some of the standards >that it puts forth will have no open source implementations if it continues down this >route and competing > open source standards will be developed by others. If the W3C wants to fork the web >I guess that is up to them though. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
