3 ms·
In which case they're being supportive in private, and utterly quiet in public. That's a neat trick in itself. But I don't think it's an issue of what they be
by duncan_bayne 13y ago
In which case they're being supportive in private, and utterly quiet in public. That's a neat trick in itself.
But I don't think it's an issue of what they believe, it's an issue of what the actual licensing terms are. Those are the real requirements, and so far they've not been made available.
- gsnedders 13y agoI don't think there's any WG which includes all W3C members — most members simply don't care enough to wish to dedicate resources to every WG, not to mention the extra obligations it makes them take on via the patent policy. The situation isn't at all unusual — just a more contentious subject matter!
- duncan_bayne 13y agoThat's true ... but this is a most fundamental issue. I'd have expected that the companies that have benefited historically from the Open Web would be at least a little concerned. Like Google. Oh, wait.
- jdjb 13y agoGoogle's now got two of their own OS'es (one of which has 85% of the worldwide market on the fastest growing segment of personal computing...) and a leading browser in the desktop space. Whatever caring about an Open Web they had before (when they were at the whims of Microsoft, Apple, other browser makers, etc) is long gone.