Hi Andy: I contacted concerned people in Sun and found out the following regarding XPointer issue
=== The Sun offer of terms was always royalty-free (reciprocal royalty-free, to be specific), and this is what footnote #1 actually says. As long Apache is intending to do a *conforming* implementation, they should feel comfortable continuing with any XPointer implementation work. === Please let me know if there are any additional questions regarding this. Regards -Ramesh ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, November 14, 2003 10:37 am Subject: Re: XPointer Issue? > Elena Litani wrote: > > I have not read the XPointer spec. and given the schedule I > don't have time > > to read it before we release. Given that I can't review the patches. > > Has the XPointer patent issue[0] been resolved? I know > that was one of the main reasons we stayed away from > implementing it for so long. > > Sun holds a patent but, according to a W3C posting[1], > is making it available under "reasonable and non- > discriminatory" (RAND) licensing. Has Apache worked > out an agreement with Sun regarding this patent so > that we can implement XPointer? > > I'm not a lawyer so the wording of the document makes > my head spin. Does it mean that we *can* go ahead and > implement it as long as we make the implementation > available royalty-free to others? OR... does it mean > that we have to have a written agreement with Sun > prior to implementation? > > [0] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/xptr_IPR_summary.html > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-linking- > ig/2001Apr/0056.html > -- > Andy Clark * [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
