Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

W3C Policy To Favor Royalty-Free Patents Only

Posted by timothy on from the good-guys-in-the-corner-pocket dept.

A report on NewsForge notes that the Last Call Working Draft of the World Wide Web Consortium's patent policy has reversed the possibility found in earlier drafts of allowing patents in Web standards which required "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" (RAND) licensing fees. This draft is the result of the vote by the W3C's patent policy board mentioned last month, which came after a proposed loosening of the royalty-free standards in the Fall of 2001.

11 of 104 comments (clear)

  1. the good guys always win by BroadbandBradley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    it just takes awhile sometimes.

    --
    "The Most Fun Possible on 4 wheels" is at SunBuggy in Las Vegas
  2. Nice, but by Duderstadt · · Score: 4, Interesting
    While I commend the W3C for demanding royalty-free licenses, I am not exactly sure that this makes a great deal of difference at this time.

    There are, AFAIK, currently dozens (hundreds?) of closed and open source implementations of virtually every defined W3C specification, all royalty free. Just as an example, I have used four or five XML/XSL parsers, some OSS, some not. Am I wrong about this?

    Perhaps someone out there can inform me if RAND licences are required to implement any of the existing W3C specs?

  3. Heh? SVG? by justsomebody · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I hope this puts flash out of bussines. It would be time for SVG to replace standard flash.

    Let the proprietary follow free standards.

    --
    Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
  4. Better yet get rid of Patents on Software. by BoomerSooner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How nice would that be? I've yet to see patents do a damn thing but stifle innovation. How the fuck can someone interpret a law written in the 1800's to apply to 21st Century society.

    All laws should expire, if they are worthy they will be renewed (could you imagine the crisis if murder was legal for a day?).

  5. A step up, but not good enough for RMS... by 3-State+Bit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Software can't be Free as long as there are patent restrictions on it, even if you can use the patents royalty-free. Why?

    I'm not sure, exactly. I guess that there are some kind of restrictions that come with use of a patent, even if it's allowed for free.

    Right now, if I have in my hand a GPL'd project, I can do whatever I want with it, can modify it in whatever way I want, as long as I do not add in a third kind of copyright. (e.g., I cannot add the stolen source to the next version of Windows into my GPL project and GPL it.)
    As long as it's between me and the software in front of me, legitimately GPL'd, I can do anything to it, as long as I license the result under the GPL.

    For some reason, I'm not sure why, this is not true if there are patents in it, even if the patents are categorically royalty-free.

    Anyone want to explain RMS's position?

    I'm afraid I can't find a link right now...

  6. Royalty free - how 'bout JPG, for example? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article: The draft policy now provides that all patents necessary to implement W3C specifications must be "royalty-free".

    What does this imply for the now patented and non-royalty-free JPG and GIF? If I read this right (IANAL), I believe it says that only royalty-free patents can be a part of spec. In a nutshell, it appears JPG and GIF are SOL.

    I think it would be great if W3C took a stand against abusive patents. This could be a really good thing, in disguise.

    Weaselmancer

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  7. Re:This is good, but... by SirSlud · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm pretty sure that web usability includes the notiong that hyperlinks exist, in part, because it allows you to package content in multiple areas.

    Your link to archive.org is a HUGE page with TONS of scrolling to get to the bottom. Thats a major transgression when youre talking about usability on the web. (Although, okay, I now see you're talking more about the compatibility and adherance to standards in the code. The design of the page itself nearly negates the advantage of using standards. ;)

    Nitpicking aside, I know what you mean. Folks who veer off from standards are essentially going it alone and usually are dismissing the tons of work and thought that goes into setting standards.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  8. Re:This is good, but... by rusty0101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nothing says you have to follow standards. Unless you market the product as "Standards Based." Even then...

    --
    You never know...
  9. Finally.... by Flyskippy1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, I must say that this is a good thing. The web, (and those who program) don't need companies that make you pay for their format. (read: Unisys sucks.)

    Actually, proprietary formats don't belong in the World Wide Web. They hurt it's development, and make it more difficult for developers to offer a wide range of support.

  10. Re:This is good, but... by sketerpot · · Score: 2, Interesting
    In my archive.org link I was referring more to the design of the entire site than I was to the design of the front page which, I admit, is pretty bad. They really should split it up more, but overall the site is easy to use. Nice hyperlinks that you click to get to another place, without the whole page moving around as if animated by evil web designers from hell.

    But yes, you're completely right--but only on the front page.

  11. Re:One-Click shopping by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I mis-spoke myself :-)

    Rather it is that W3C working group members could have gained the right to charge implementors for patents held by the members that they deliberately embedded in the standard. This is called "patent farming".

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.