Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:2oapb5-l3s.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> Jesper Lund Stocholm <jls2008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> Yes - and there is naturally a reason for the word not being "must".
>>
>> Ought-to is, in fact, very strong. You (one) need(s) a very strong
>> reason for not abiding by the rule.
>
> So you agree with me, that there is a difference between the words
> "shall" and "should", right? Using the word "should" does /not/ imply a
> normative requirement for implementers.
Nor does it imply an option. So I'm not sure that I do agree with you.
>
>>>> I know that W3C's rules require that there is no patent involved in
>>>> their work. I know that ISO permit such patents. These are two
>>>> positions of certainty. The simplest analysis, therefore, shows
>>>> that W3C standards should be preferred since they guarantee the
>>>> avoidance of attempts by companies to shovel patents in under the
>>>> carpet of the standard, whereas, as you state above, ISO encourages
>>>> such behaviour.
>>>
>>> Seriously, the W3C policy does not quarantee anything and you are
>>> also wrong wtrt W3C requirement that no patents are involved in their
>>> work. From http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/ you will see
>>> the phrasing:
>>
>> Okay, I should've said that there're guaranteed to be no royalty or
>> licensing requirements... unlike at ISO, where you could be taken to
>> the cleaners for using any of their standards.
>
> No - that is a blue-sky scenario.
No, it's the real world.
>
>> Ie., if you use a W3C standard, you do not have to worry about
>> patents, because nobody will be coming after you.
>
> Those /participating/ in the work will not come after you - but there is
> no guarantee that patent holders outside of the W3C-work will come after
> you. You use the word "guarantee" a lot - an it is a bit dangerous since
> it's not actually so.
If a w3c standard is based on such, then it must be revoked.
>
>> So, my point remains, if you wish to avoid patent problems, then use
>> W3C standards, because you have a guarantee, whereas is you use ISO
>> standards, you run a high risk, since ISO encourages the inclusion of
>> patents in its standards.
>
> No - you have no guarantees - period.
Yes, you have. w3c standards *require* that there are no royalty
payments, that there is no RAND, whereas ISO encourages submarine
patents. The difference is clear, no matter how you try to spin "no
royalties" as the same as "royalties", they're opposites, Jesper.
<snippage of reptition>
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
