On 11 Dec 2007, at 13:36, Maik Merten wrote:
The old wording was a SHOULD requirement. No MUST. If the big players don't want to take the perceived risk (their decision) they'd still be 100% within the spec. Thus I fail to see why there was need for action.
There's a question within the W3C Process whether patents that are covered by a SHOULD via a reference are granted a RF license similarly to anything that MUST be implemented. Both Nokia and MS raised concerns about this relating to publishing the spec as a FPWD.
-- Geoffrey Sneddon <http://gsnedders.com/>
