> I think this is really the central point of the dispute; "reasonable and > non-discriminatory" is a very vague way of putting it. Realistically, I > think most of the people would be satisfied if the document contained > explicit language safeguarding free software/open source. Unfortunately, > the W3C is, well, an industry consortium, and I don't think that most > people trust it to stand up and consider such licenses "discriminatory" if > push came to shove.
Chris is exactly right. The way the W3C defines "non-discriminatory" means that Microsoft would have to charge Mozilla and Opera Software the same amount per-seat for CSS patent licenses. It means nothing more than that. Gerv
