[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dmca-discuss
Subject:    [DMCA_discuss] Fwd: Re: Your Utter Arrogance is Showing
From:       tom poe <tompoe () renonevada ! net>
Date:       2001-09-30 1:51:58
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi:  And the follow-up.   Tom

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
Subject: Re: Your Utter Arrogance is Showing
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 13:06:04 -0700
From: tom poe <tompoe@renonevada.net>
To: "PETERSON,SCOTT K (HP-USA,ex1)" <scott_k_peterson@hp.com>


On Saturday 29 September 2001 10:49, PETERSON,SCOTT K (HP-USA,ex1) wrote:
> Tom --
>
> How is the new policy worse for free software than the present policy?
>
> I invite you to consider the concept of WG licensing "modes" that is
> discussed in section 5. The ability to charter a WG as an RF mode WG is a
> significant improvement over how other standards bodies typically approach
> the issue of essential patents.
>
> -- Scott
> ___________________________________________________________
> Scott K. Peterson               |  Hewlett-Packard Company
> Corporate Counsel               |  1 Main St., 10th floor
> email: scott_k_peterson@hp.com  |  Cambridge, MA 02142
> phone: 617 or telnet 679-9346   |
> cell:  978-764-8615             |
> fax:   617-679-9330             |

Hello Scott:  I think you might have missed the point I made quite clearly.
Open Source is royalty free software.  Open standards are royalty-free
standards.  When a company such as M$ claims a patent for viewing web sites
on a computer, such patents threaten the very existence of the Internet.
When a company claims a patent for images, it threatens the very existence of
the infrastructure on which the Internet is based.  When a company claims any
patent that is used in the standards put forth by a governing body, the
standards organization ceases to be a nonprofit organization, and converts to
a profit-making mode of operation, subject to the wishes and desires of the
sponsors funding the work done by the standards organization.  You remind me
to consider the WG licensing "modes".  Stop right there.  There are no
mode[s], but simply a mode, a royalty-free mode.  End of discussion.  You
cannot make an issue where there is none.  There is but one mode in Open
Source software.  Royalty free mode.  Anything other is considered
proprietary.  Thank you for your consideration, and I truly beseech you to
reconsider the destruction of the W3C.org on Monday.  Tom

P.S.  Since you're this far in the reading, might as well take this also:
XLINK was/is one of the most remarkable contributions to the Internet that
has ever been conceived.  Yet, and although I am not an integral part of the
internal goings-on in the W3C.org, I can still bet a lot of money on just why
it remains an unviable standard at this time.  You see, I recognized the
extraordinary potential of XLINK as soon as it was put on the table in 1998.
I have a web page devoted to one example of how powerful this feature would
be to the developing world, when it arrives.  This page was put up in 1998:
http://www.worldccr.org/xmloriginal.htm  Now, if XLINK becomes a royalty free
standard, proprietary interests can go someplace else to make their money.
The power shifts completely to the individual.  And, you know that, and I
know that, and someday the rest of the world community will know too.
They'll also remember the companies that deliberately and with pure greed in
their hearts kept XLINK from becoming the standard it might have.

We're Still Waiting!

-------------------------------------------------------

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]