Hi, On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 04:09:32PM +0100, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: > With respect to a Recommendation developed under this policy, a W3C > Royalty-Free license shall mean a non-assignable, non-sublicensable > license to make, have made, use, sell, have sold, offer to sell, > import, and distribute and dispose of implementations of the > Recommendation that: > > [...] > > 3. may be limited to implementations of the Recommendation, and > to what is required by the Recommendation;
before having read the whole draft: To me this passage implies that the new policy allows for patents to go into a standard that would only shift the battlefield by restricting Open Source implementations of those standards to the required parts while being forced to leave out the optional parts a standard may have unless you want to fall under those royalty claims. Is this an oversight, am I just reading it wrong, or what the heck should agreeing to such a clause buy us? I just expect new standards under this rule to have lots of optional features and a two class system of applications which only conform to the minimal set, and those which implement the "full" standard. Best, --Toni++ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
