• To: Claude Seyrat <claude.seyrat@e...>
• Subject: Re: Patent non-proliferation and disarmament
• From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
• Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 10:09:16 -0400 (EDT)
• Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
• In-reply-to: <3CDE6168.4276BEDE@e...>

> Finally, open source shall not be opposed to RAND. For instance, 
> in MPEG, reference softwares are open source. It is even mandatory 
> to provide an open source software otherwise the technology can't be
> introduced within the standard.

That's a free reference implementation.  It is not 'open source' in the 
true sense of the definition.  See 
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html for the definition.
In paticular, note the lack of licensing fees for use.

Now you can say "I don't mean the official OSI definition, I mean the 
generic concept."  Maybe so, but that is not appropriate here, where the 
W3C patent discussion clearly focussed on the patent fee requirement.
	/r$

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Patent non-proliferation and disarmament
    • From: Claude Seyrat <claude.seyrat@e...>

• References:
  • Re: Patent non-proliferation and disarmament
    • From: Claude Seyrat <claude.seyrat@e...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Patent non-proliferation and disarmament
• Next by Date: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• Previous by thread: Re: Patent non-proliferation and disarmament
• Next by thread: Re: Patent non-proliferation and disarmament
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread