RE: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun

From
Bullard, Claude L (Len) <>
To
'Elliotte Rusty Harold' <>
Date
2003-01-17T21:36:41Z
ID
<>
Thread
RE: [xml-dev] Facts to Support RAND? was: Re: [xml-dev] more pate nt fun
You can implement it, yes; you can't change the design 
or adapt the specification.  They gave up no rights; 
they don't charge you to implement it.  Quite.  And 
it isn't submitted as a specification for all to 
comment on, change, or otherwise dink with.  Java 
is an even more restricted case.  Of course, if Java were 
submitted to the W3C as a specification candidate, 
would the Java programmers be happy about that? 
Interestingly, both Adobe and Sun make the same 
case for not doing that; they say that they can 
maintain and evolve it better than open standards 
groups can.  So maybe some fundamental Internet 
technologies are better handled as proprietary 
applications?

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:]

At 12:43 PM -0600 1/17/03, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:


>As for market amplification, that's hard to predict.
>Why hasn't Adobe given up the rights to PDF

They have. PDF is freely implementable, and is in fact freely implemented.