RE: [rights] RE: [rights-requirements] Silent Running

["DuCharme, Bob (LNG)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>]

Bob Glushko wrote:

 

>["the" vs. "a," RAND vs. RF]

 

and

 

>I especially think that given Bob DuCharme's recent suggestion about conformance

>and a BasicRights standard extension being part of it, we may have a way through

>this issue that doesn't require all of the drastic measures that Karl Best has outlined

>for us here.

I personally consider these to be two different issues.

 

Much of the first would be solved by CG saying publicly and clearly what they've said in private and hinted at in the XrML FAQ: that they plan to make money by charging license fees for the use of the technology described in their patents, which don't mention XrML, and that the use of XrML in and of itself does not necessarily incur a licensing obligation--that is, that DRM systems that use XrML without infringing their patents are perfectly plausible.

 

The second is the core vs. non-core, we need to address basic consumer protection vs. we can always get to that later debate, for which I suggested that we keep the core lean and mean, give conformance a higher priority, and consider making a BasicRights extension a conformance requirement.

 

Whichever of these two problems is solved first (I'm betting on the first, because it would be so simple to do), the other will remain a problem that requires a separate effort.

 

Bob DuCharme
Consulting Software Engineer, LexisNexis
Data Architecture, Editorial Systems and Content Engineering