Peter Donald wrote: > ie If we could set up a decent process and work with other standards > organizations (ECMA, IEEE, W3C), have a relatively formal > participation contract (and thus *safe* from eyes of corporate/IP > lawyers) and finally make allies of organisations like IBM, Apple > and whoever else then it would be viable for many things.
This would be good. Open source software has a strong position in the web marketplace. It should be possible to use that position to gain influence in standards processes. The IETF is an open body that sets network standards; why can't there be a similar body that standardises APIs? I do feel, however, that the appropriate model is the IETF, not the W3C. The W3C charges a fee for participation, which discriminates against open source efforts. It is better than JCP, but if we are designing our own standards body why settle for second best? The IETF has worked through the intellectual property problems. So for example when you attend a working group meeting you receive a piece of paper saying that you can't do a Rambus... The IETF will allow patented algorithms under certain circumstances. Of course we are free to decide not to. The IETF is a good model, IMHO, but we don't have to create an exact copy. > It still would be difficult to do anything with respect to the real > core as Sun controls the source to a large degree. Well, gcj is one free implementation of much of the core. At the same time, it would probably be unhelpful to come up with a revision of the core J2SE standard. It makes sense to concentrate on areas where standards are in more of a state of flux. -- Pete -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
