xmlgraphics-batik-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Vincent Hardy <vincent.ha...@sun.com>
Subject Re: More on RAND/RF issues
Date Wed, 10 Oct 2001 13:02:29 GMT

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:

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)

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. 


> 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
> 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: batik-users-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: batik-users-help@xml.apache.org

View raw message