don't lump the W3C with OASIS and WS-I on IPR

I think that Martin Lamonica got more things right with this interview than any one I've ever done,  and I especially enjoyed the fact that he let me blame reporters for abusing "standard" in place of "specification."

But I do want to correct one thing that I don't think I said exactly the way he reports it here.   I do think it is fair to say that neither OASIS, W3C, nor WS-I are standards organizations according to the definition I advanced here.  But I don't think it is fair to lump the W3C in with WS-I  on either openness or IP terms, and I'd hate for people to make that inference.   The W3C worked very hard to put a royalty-free policy in place while OASIS and WS-I have aggressively resisted one.

And of  course, as I pointed out,  being a "real" standards body doesn't imply that you have a reasonable IP policy either or an acceptable level of openness.

--
Robert J. Glushko, Ph.D.
http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~glushko
Center for Document Engineering http://cde.berkeley.edu
School of Information Management & Systems
102 South Hall
University of California, Berkeley CA 94720-4600

mission accomplished? here's what Bush is accomplishing...
http://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~glushko/WhatBushAccomplished.gif