[GRASSLIST:5000] Re: Considerations for SVG 1.1 spec from W3C
jvarga at boulder.net
Tue Nov 19 16:14:55 EST 2002
Not clearly understanding patent law, etc., it would seem that if W3C
is leading the specification generation, they would be driven to avoid
complications of patent infringement as they typically do, and the GRASS
development team could proceed on that presumption. Even if a complication
arose post completion, an open spec can be ammended to skirt the legal
implication, and no one would be quicker to do so than W3C, at least
while Tim Berners Lee has something to say about it. For me personally,
that would be enough to proceed upon. My initial overview of the spec
suggests that nothing in the spec itself is patentable.
Regardless, I stand by my original question. This emerging spec could
be very powerful and beneficial to the geospatial community. It would
seem that all but the largest of commercial vendors has something to
gain by implementing interfaces to this vector exchange format. None
more so than an open source GIS, institutional organizations and
governments paying absorbatant fees for overly restrictive licenses.
Particularly an open source GIS moving toward a more complex
vector data model.
Just my $0.02...
Bernhard Reiter wrote:
>We still need to check if SVG is completely unencumbered by patents.
>(This is a general problem for the Free Software community,
>not just special to GRASS so this might not be the best place to
>discuss it in detail.)
>On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 02:30:53PM -0700, Jack Varga wrote:
>>I couldn't help but notice that no one with a geospatial
>>background is involved in authoring the emerging
>>Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) specification from
>>W3C. On the surface, it would seem that GRASS
>>represents one of the premier opportunities for implementing
>>SVG for both reading in and writing out vector data.
>>But short of considerations for geospatial data (i.e.,
>>projection system integration), it would appear the
>>geospatial community is missing a golden opportunity.
>>Any thoughts on this from the GRASS community?
More information about the grass-user