Actually it is still an issue - you patent methods, and it is rather possible that a proposal could show up that is only capable of being implemented by using a patented method. SVG has this issue, and the fact that W3 is using the new patent policy to handle the SVG issues *before* it is approved is one of the many reasons people are upset.
Another reason is that the W3C policy defaults to charging RAND fees if patents owned by a member company come up after a specification is established - it should default to being RF (royalty free) to prevent people from keeping patents hidden until after a specification is published. Is this on-topic, though? :-) -David Waite Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>I am a co-founder of a software company and I don't see patents as a good >>thing. I am pro-IP too, but I cannot support an 'open web standard' that is >>tied up with patents. Either the specification is open (and free for use) or >>it is NOT. >> > >The entire specification is open. > >>Does Jabber.org have a patent policy on contributions ? >> > >Jabber.org now manages just the XML protocol for jabber. The other kinds >of "contributions" (let's say, a new IRC Transport or whatever) are code >created to use Jabber's open XML protocol but they are not part of the >core of Jabber itself. So you could patent or (in this case more likely >copyright) your code and license it however you please. That in no way >affects the core Jabber protocol. > >Peter > >_______________________________________________ >jdev mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev > _______________________________________________ jdev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/jdev
