As Bob Wyman pointed out, I haven't looked at the new final draft in depth just yet. But my understanding of the W3C Recommendation Process (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr. html#RecsW3C)is that the Director is "responsible for assessing consensus" before a W3C Rec is issued (see http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/orga nization.html#def-Director). I interpret this to mean that no finished product goes out the W3C door without Tim B-L's explicit approval.
I'm guessing that if the PAG has given its unanimous approval, then B-L won't personally object to the finished product. But remember, the PAG is already stacked with people sympathetic to B-L's anti-patent beliefs; so these people (including the W3C counsel as you suggest) will already do B-L's dirty work so he won't have to. Very similar to the way that Weitzner was appointed head of the PPWG - if B-L had appointed a pro-patents person to head the PPWG, the PPWG never would have listened to all the people who support the RF policy, and surely the W3C would embrace RAND more than it does now.
It's not at all a last-minute compromise. The RAND exception has been a part of the PPWG policy since last February, at least. See http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-2002022 6/#sec-Exception.
The current royalty-free policy is a shift from a previously announced August 2001) RAND policy. There were some (arguably) good reasons for a RAND policy; but the PPWG has decided that the only good reason for a RAND policy is if there is no way around the use of patented code.
Hence the exception still exists as a useful remnant of what used to be the RAND rule. Weitzner stressed that it's tough to use because the PPWG doesnt want people to use it easily. And remember, Berners-Lee has to sign off on everything, and it would really take a lot for him to sign off on a RAND Recommendation.
Also - a key part of the RAND exception is that the terms of the license (RAND or RF) must be clearly stated upfront. So they don't get submarined (a la Rambus - grrrr)
I wrote a paper about the W3C's PPWG and the extent to which we can consider their rulemaking process legitimate. I conclude that extended periods for public comment, invitation of outside experts Moglen and Perens, and extensive replies to public comments (from Daly and Weitzner) meets a high "democratic" standard. Berners-Lee's "benevolent dictatorship" is centrally important, as well.
Slashdot Mirror
As Bob Wyman pointed out, I haven't looked at the new final draft in depth just yet. But my understanding of the W3C Recommendation Process (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/tr. html#RecsW3C)is that the Director is "responsible for assessing consensus" before a W3C Rec is issued (see http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/orga nization.html#def-Director). I interpret this to mean that no finished product goes out the W3C door without Tim B-L's explicit approval.
I'm guessing that if the PAG has given its unanimous approval, then B-L won't personally object to the finished product. But remember, the PAG is already stacked with people sympathetic to B-L's anti-patent beliefs; so these people (including the W3C counsel as you suggest) will already do B-L's dirty work so he won't have to. Very similar to the way that Weitzner was appointed head of the PPWG - if B-L had appointed a pro-patents person to head the PPWG, the PPWG never would have listened to all the people who support the RF policy, and surely the W3C would embrace RAND more than it does now.
It's not at all a last-minute compromise. The RAND exception has been a part of the PPWG policy since last February, at least. See http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-patent-policy-2002022 6/#sec-Exception.
The current royalty-free policy is a shift from a previously announced August 2001) RAND policy. There were some (arguably) good reasons for a RAND policy; but the PPWG has decided that the only good reason for a RAND policy is if there is no way around the use of patented code.
Hence the exception still exists as a useful remnant of what used to be the RAND rule. Weitzner stressed that it's tough to use because the PPWG doesnt want people to use it easily. And remember, Berners-Lee has to sign off on everything, and it would really take a lot for him to sign off on a RAND Recommendation.
Also - a key part of the RAND exception is that the terms of the license (RAND or RF) must be clearly stated upfront. So they don't get submarined (a la Rambus - grrrr)
I wrote a paper about the W3C's PPWG and the extent to which we can consider their rulemaking process legitimate. I conclude that extended periods for public comment, invitation of outside experts Moglen and Perens, and extensive replies to public comments (from Daly and Weitzner) meets a high "democratic" standard. Berners-Lee's "benevolent dictatorship" is centrally important, as well.
e nt /alr-w3c-tprc.pdf
http://ucsub.colorado.edu/~russelal/papers/curr