rights message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [rights] RE: [rights-requirements] Silent Running
- From: "DuCharme, Bob (LNG)" <bob.ducharme@lexisnexis.com>
- To: 'Bob Glushko' <glushko@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU>,"Reddy, Hari" <Hari.Reddy@CONTENTGUARD.COM>, pdurusau@emory.edu,rights@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 22:42:40 -0400
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
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC