Slashdot Mirror
W3C Ponders RAND Again
simonstl writes "Three unnamed W3C participants have suggested a new RAND policy that would let the W3C into the business of charging royalties for patent-encumbered specs. No consensus yet, but they sure seem to keep trying."
Internet protocols should be free to use - is that so difficult to understand? There would be NO INTERNET without the foundation of free protocols already in place. Evict those 3 members suggesting RAND from the W3C board.
One minute the W3C are complaining about people who don't stick to their standards, and the next they're stating that using the standards might cost you money. Its madness.
The web was built on open and unrestricted standards, yet the people in charge seem keen to bow to pressure from a few special interest groups (and does anyone believe the proposers of this licensing aren't massive corporations with deep pockets) and cut off the thing that made it grow in the first place. I despair, sometimes.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Because not one of us will be able to read the letter in a few minutes...
Hello,
Twenty people attended the 1 July 2002 Patent Policy Working Group
(PPWG) teleconference. The meeting was devoted to a new RAND
exception proposal circulated by three participants and the Chair.
When non-royalty-free IPR is discovered in a W3C Working Group, a
Patent Advisory Group (PAG) might have a number of possible
outcomes. The proposal suggests that the Working Group's
specification could be split in two. "Core" work to be licensed
royalty-free would be produced as a W3C Recommendation.
"Extensions" that may require royalties could be done at W3C or by
another standards organization.
One person suggested Extensions work be dropped. Some said work at
the other standards organization needs to be a cooperative effort
with W3C. One person suggested a hybrid all produced at W3C. One
asked if the Core/Extensions split makes Extensions work less
important than Core. The consensus seemed to be that specs built on
top of Core work are valuable and that standardizing them is
important.
The group did not appear to universally accept the proposal.
Discussion may continue when the group meets next on 8 July.
Best wishes,
--
Susan Lesch
http://www.w3.org/People/Lesch/
mailto:lesch@w3.org
tel:+1.858.483.4819
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
http://www.w3.org/
Am I the only one confused by this letter...?
Tibbon
tibbon.com
undoubtedly they fear the RMS S.W.A.T. task force set out for retribution against all those who would dare profit from software specifications....
So they are going to charge royalties for extensions? Does that mean that I will have to pay to use .cgi on my site? Or am I thinking about the wrong thing?
Whatever it is, it seems to work against the standards that they are trying for
Tibbon
tibbon.com
The article was completely meaningless. Every other word I was like "what the heck are they talking about?"
Unfortunately my coffeepot takes five minutes boot up, or maybe it would make more sense....
At least all my coworkers have enough survival instincts to stay away until I've had my coffee.
WHAT KIND OF ERROR IS THIS?!? BEAN PANIC?!?
...
Now I am fully of the happily coexist school of free vs. commercial software, but it strikes me as a little fishy that the organization responsible for setting the standards that everyone supposedly has to follow on the web will also stand to make a profit off of those standards. Doesn't exactly make for unbiased decision making.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
that if this goes through it will only encourage people away from standards. This is last thing we as a community want.
IE will become the actual standard, rather than the percieved. Not a nice sunny day in the www.
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -Tom Waits
There is no reason for them to believe they are immune from being replaced, or simply ignored. The most important issue at hand for the WC3 is that many people have had time to digest their response to the first RAND. The reply this time might be more in the field of action rather than words. Their final decision could be one that they would regret.
To the Slashdot discussion that appeared on how webmasters were coding mostly for Microsoft Internet Explorer.
I mean, IE already does not respect the W3C standards as well as it should. And it is the dominant force on the net today.
If W3C was to charge money for some IP, what can prevent MS from saying: "Fsck off, we will set the standards, because we are the standard"?
Think about it. And be afraid. Be very afraid.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
The industry already ignores standards. (See IE.)
;)
One of the great things about the internet is that it theoretically routes around damage. If w3c tries to fsck people over, we'll simply route around them as well.
They can only make suggestions.
We can ignore them if they advocate using royalty-ware.
The free software community will propose a free solution and all will be good in the world again.
The folks at W3C should head the opinions of the masses or they will find themselves out of jobs.
When will we have an OpenHTML group, developing a standard which will probably be called GNUML?
/. displays perfectly in Links-2, and Dillo, so why anyone would use anything else is beyond me. Every day, I listen to people saying, "Oh, but I keep [IE|NETSCAPE] on my system just to browse those pages that FOOBAR-OPENSOURCE-BROWSER doesn't displayy". Yeah, right, they just can't be bothered to install a decent browser.
I mean, we already have a company developing their own version of HTML, that only works on one browser, don't we?
Incidently,
The owners of the IP make the money, which could be direct contributors to the spec ... but could just as well be third parties.
Unless I misunderstood, they are not saying that they would consider charging for IP. It appears to me that they were discussing how to handle standards proposals that included licensable, royalty work. That the normal(?) process is to break a specification into non-royalty works and royalty works in such a way that the non-royalty works would not depend on the royalty works and that the royalty works would be farmed out to another organization.
"When non-royalty-free IPR is discovered in a W3C Working Group, a Patent Advisory Group (PAG) might have a number of possible outcomes. The proposal suggests that the Working Group's specification could be split in two. "Core" work to be licensed royalty-free would be produced as a W3C Recommendation. "Extensions" that may require royalties could be done at W3C or by another standards organization."
The question appeared to be if that should continue. Of if W3C could work on the royalty works as well or if they could not go through the trouble of splitting the proposal and work on the entire thing.
"One person suggested Extensions work be dropped. Some said work at the other standards organization needs to be a cooperative effort with W3C. One person suggested a hybrid all produced at W3C. One asked if the Core/Extensions split makes Extensions work less important than Core. The consensus seemed to be that specs built on top of Core work are valuable and that standardizing them is important."
I have to use this cause I can't afford a real sig...
I liked this gem in their July 8 meeting notes...the group meets next on 8 July
The truth shall set you free!
Man I am ever behind on the acronyms used in computing these days. I read the headline from this stroy and had no idea what it could possibly be about.
Sorry its offtopic, but...
From: dank@kegel.com2 6/#sec-Exception
which says
"In the event a patent has been disclosed that may be essential,
but is not available on RF terms, then a Patent Advisory Group
(PAG) will be launched to resolve the conflict."
implies that RAND will be used only when a patent is truly
essential. But the proposal you mentioned above talks about
extensions. By definition, an extension is not essential.
Therefore the W3C's existing public statements don't support
the kind of exception proposal you mentioned.
If I understand correctly, the W3C's position on RAND as described in http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-200202
You are aware you're treading on very dangerous ground here, I'm sure. Care to identify the three participants who are eager to introduce extensions that require royalty payments? - Dan
I need to buy this guy a beer and a pizza because he replies to the heart of the matter. What part of NO did a few members not understand from the last time they tried going this way. Well, let me reiterate, NO, NO, NO. I'd love to join W3C and kick some ass over there but unfortunately I don't have the $5,750 to cover their 'affiliate' membership fee. Bastards!
At least the $5750 membership fee is applied on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.
sulli
RTFJ.
We all know RAND is incompatible with open source. Without open source, there would be no W3C! If every open source browser stopped supporting new standards, there would be only one dominant browser. That one browser shows no intentions of adhearing to the W3C's standards. How can the W3C not see this?!? Without open source, they are DEAD!
I thought after all the discussion and backlash last year, that I was pretty clear that the internet community, wants insternet standards to remain free. Any Proposal that even mentions that any web standard could be brought to to being, as not free should be immediately rejected. This extentions crap is just a dodge, where some company say "Big Evil Corporation" here to refered to as M$ could intoduce a new standard as "core" and freee get us all hooked on it, then introduce "extentions" that are the really good most desired functionality, and fill there coffers. This stinks of M$ "embrace and extend"....I hope this proposal like last years get as universally rejected and the community sees the forset for the trees here....
The Internet and the standards which make it work, and grow need to remain free....
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
concerning the w3c copyrigth on HTML and why it should be GPL'd or GPDL'd groups.google.com Don't forget to read their reply and the long flame/troll thread started over that I'll bet there are a few "experts" in com.infosystems.www.authoring.html who feel like morons now. LOL
is nothing new here but I think that, in the end, free/open source software will be killed by IP because every idea will eventually be patented. This really bothers me but I don't see how this can be avoided.
Perhaps the W3C should stipulate that for a patented technology to become accepted a standard that no-cost licensing must be available for free (or non-commercial) projects?
Offtopic, but am I the only one that reads W3C as WarCraft III every time I see it now?
Some granted patents are really bogus. If the W3C is working on some spec, and it stumbles upon someone's patent along the way, the patent should be scrutinized very closely. I would believe most could be disallowed on the grounds of prior art - instead of having W3C charging people for royalties. This could shake the whole IPR issue very nicely too.
z
No, this is not about W3C staff wanting RAND specifications.
It's about what to do if we're working on a specification that the community (including the open source community) needs/wants, and we discover that some aspect of it is covered by software patents.
In that case, you might not be able to have an open source implementation, and W3C has to ask, (1) should the work be dropped altogether, or (2) is there a central core that can be implemented freely, avoiding the patent? If so, should the non-free part still be standardised, and under what terms?
By making an extension to a specification, an implementation can conform without that (possibly non-free) extension, but at the same time w3C can require W3C member organizations to agree to "non-discriminatory" terms, i.e. forcing them to agree to licence the patent to their competitors.
That may be better than having no specification at all, I don't know.
Note: I work at W3C, and am not involved in the specific work mentioned, nor in the patent policy group.
Live barefoot!
free engravings/woodcuts
In a recent cabal, the Illuminati pondered ratcheting back some of this new-fangled "freedom" that some people had been enjoying. Apparently the use of such "freedom" has been interfering with some rather important conspiracies recently. The alien landing, the zero-point-energy car, and the reason my sunglasses keep disappearing were safely handled with a cover-up, but some leaders privately worried that one of these days, the Grand Conspiracy of Everything might have less than complete control over the lives of humanity.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I'd like to put my hands around those who are trying to profit from the standard.
If those dick heads succeed then i guarantee you their will be an open source body to make new specifications will be started.
Don't get your panties in a wad just yet
Translation: "Be sufficiently cowed by my pre-emtive ad-homonim attack so as not to speak out on this important issue"
Unless I misunderstood, they are not saying that they would consider charging for IP.
This is deceptive semantics. It makes no difference whether it is the w3c charging a patent royalty, or Microsoft charging a patent royalty. If the royalty is requried to adhere to a w3c standard because the fools have incorporated patented material into the standard, then the damage is done regardless of who the web/browser authors have to pay the Vig to, and a once open and free (beer, speech) standard will have become much less open and very unfree, i.e. it will have become worse than worthless to the majority of small web publishers and free software authors, it will have become something to be actively avoided.
It appears to me that they were discussing how to handle standards proposals that included licensable, royalty work. That the normal(?) process is to break a specification into non-royalty works and royalty works in such a way that the non-royalty works would not depend on the royalty works and that the royalty works would be farmed out to another organization.
There is already a procedure in place: do not allow patent-encumbered works into open internet standards, period. As another poster pointed out, which part of No! No! No! didn't they understand the last time around? This is an attempt to change the procedure to allow something which, for very good reason, is disallowed now, i.e. the incorporation of patented procedures into w3c standards that will result in an open and free standard becoming encumbered, less open, and not free at all (in any sense).
In other words, this is yet another sordid attempt to sneak patented work into the standard through the back door, and it deserves every bit of derision and outrage it is getting.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
According to Microsoft, the success of the entire industry depends on an "Ecosystem" where initial long-range developments are placed in the public domain and can later be exploited royalty-free once Micr... er, the "IP Community" sees a short-term profit opportunity.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
I'm directly involved in one of the W3C standard efforts - VoiceXML - where RAND is in demand by some of the larger participants. The RAND issue is driven by two things:
1. Failing business at larger corporations. Companies like Motorola and Lucent are falling quickly, and they are looking to patent & license the technologies behind standards in a desperate attempt to increase revenue.
2. Microsoft. From the inside, it's obvious that Microsofts anti-open-source strategy is to "RAND"ify as many standards as they can. Privately, I can tell you that many of Microsofts RAND agreements require *$0.00* in payment, but are written in such a way that they prevent open source implementations.
It's about what to do if we're working on a specification that the community (including the open source community) needs/wants, and we discover that some aspect of it is covered by software patents.
...The consensus seemed to be that specs built on top of Core work (extensions?) are valuable and that standardizing them is important.
That may be part of it but I'm not so sure that it is the only thing they are talking about. The following seems to suggest a lot more than just patent discovery.
"Extensions" that may require royalties could be done at W3C or by another standards organization.
or WC3? I read it as Warcraft3 at my first glace. I play games too much.
People seem to have agreed that, just because there's a patent, everyone shouldn't do things differently. At issue here is who should determine such a standard, and who should promote it.
It seems to me that the extent of the W3C's involvement should be to determine the people to pass the standard of to, whether it be an interested subset of the members of the committee that found the patent, an entirely different group of people, or a different standards body. Presumably the people interested in implementing the patented technology would be represented, so the standard would not need to be recommended by a standards body, as it had been developed by the people who would then use it.
So long as it's possible to have a patent that interferes with a standard (such that the standard cannot simply be fixed to avoid the patented part), the W3C has to have some clear idea of what to do when a committee finds themselves stuck.
the thing I don't like about RAND license in public standard is it implicitly supports non royal free technology for public domain and implicitly devalues royal free standards. It's not as blatant as saying "come on down to the price is right." But it does encourage businesses to push for RAND, which in my mind will result in the breakdown of W3C and public standards. It's my opinion, so whether it's true or not is a different story. I just feel that going down the RAND path will lead to certain death of W3C.
Man, I'm so sick of Slashdot's hypocritical coverage of this new Blizard game. If you're so unhappy with the way they handled the bnetd case, then stop giving WC3 publicity!
Oh wait... you said W3C? Never mind. Forget I said anything.
Reading your other comments, I think all I can say usefully is that it's not a goal of the w3C team members (the staff) to publish specs that cannot be implemnted openly and freely. You (and others) may be reading more into the wording than was intended. But, it's hard to read and interpret email without the full context, and neither of us were at the meeting.
I'm not sure I have explained this very clearly - Digital Mage, feel free to email me if that will help (liam at w3 dot org). I have not seen an "official" W3C response, and neither can I give you one, but I can maybe help you understand the issues, and also show you how you can send effective feedback to W3C working groups.
Liam
[sorry, my personal web site is down right now, www.w3.org/People/Quin works though]
Live barefoot!
free engravings/woodcuts
No consensus yet, but they sure seem to keep trying.
And they will continue to try, forever, until they get what they want or go bankrupt.
M$ makes $1b / month in revenue. They have the resources to keep fighting this fight forever. Our only defense is eternal diligence. Our only offense is to support open standards and companies committed to open standards every chance we get. There are alot of people here who make purchasing decisions for IT departments. When you vote with your dollars, don't forget what's happening here.
-- p
MUAHAHHAA
Closed standards are not standards.
Proprietary standards are not standards.
Whether you want it or not, if you propose acceptance of RAND specifications, then you are proposing that the W3C cease to be a standards body.
The purpose of a standard is to define the way in which things should be done. If a patent prevents them from being done in some way, then that is not a possible standard way to do them. Something which had been a standard, if prevented from use by a patent, should be withdrawn, and the name made unuseable. (If names are trademarked, this means revoking all authorization to use the name. Otherwise it means revoking all authorization to use the name of the W3C in conjunction with the prior standard.)
Anything less is unacceptable. Patents are only allowable as long as they to not impede standard conforming usage.
"non-descriminatory" is a term created by companies that intend to descriminate. It is blatant camoflage, and should not be acceptable. Non-free specifications are not standards, and cannot become standards as long as they remain non-free. The concepts are in direct opposition. Proprietary is feasible, but there is a strong tendency to confuse proprietary with the right to be paid. So to be explicit here, if you must pay to use a specification, then it cannot qualify as a standard. Perhaps one would need to pay to be certified as standard compliant. That's a totally separate matter. The right to certify something as being W3C standard compliant must inevitably belong to the W3C, and perhaps it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to delegate that right to a third party. But charging for the use of a standard is incompatible with the concept of standards.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
and Ages Come and Go.
The Dragon is Reborn?
I won't really worry until the RIAA starts going after music-sharers with Myrdraal...
The price to pay to have your way as the standard is to lose the ability to charge for using it.
After all, you already have the edge on competitors, since your implementation is further along than anyone else's.
Say it here.
Last time, we won, because we cared, we posted, we let the world know what we think. No RAND-encumbered Web Standards. Only Royalty Free will do.
Oh, before you post, read at least some of the most recent patentpolicy-comment archives. No swearing, no telling people they're stupid. Just them them "no!".
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
Is it just my imagination, or does the W3C marginalize itself every time it tries this?
If it's valuable enough to the community as a whole standardize, it's too valuable to be sealed off behind the RAND wall. If it is inessential enough to be behind a RAND wall, it is inessential enough not to be an W3C-endorsed extension to a standard.
Or another way: if it's important enough that companies should have RAND access to it, it's important enough that the open-source developers have RAND access to it. And for open source software, "reasonable and non-discriminatory" means GPL-able, which means free and unlimited distribution and development.
- If there is a central core that can be implemented freely, avoiding the patent, should the non-free part be standardized, and under what terms?
- Otherwise, should the work be dropped altogether?
The answers, of course, are no and yes, respectively.The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
But we've seen private standards before and they are not good. Many networks with private and closed standards existed for decades prior to the Internet. Only open standards allowed formation the web and the Internet as it is today. Going back to closed standards would make it expensive and difficult for any new developments to reach critical mass in adoption. This would put innovation back on ice, something that would be really bad at this moment in the economic recession / depression. (Eating your seed potatos | penny wise, pound foolish.)
If the corporations are really interested in turning a quick profit, how about capping executive salaries and perks? Each business could save millions if not billions that way, while still enabling future development.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.