Re: [chairs] Proposal to address Open Source concerns

["David Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Gabe,

 

I wish we could get this done. 

 

<snip>

Since the Open Source community already defines the meaning of "Open Source", we believe the best way to do move forward would be to engage the Open Source community (especially the attorneys and the people at the Open Source Initiative) to:

• determine what such a label/logo might look like and mean, and
• create or ensure that there is an OASIS RF license (for patent, copyright, trademark IPR) mode for TC's  that allows Open Source (tm) implementation.

</snip>

 

Jamie's note says we can - but the Board already rejected

this - since myself and others asked for a "4th IPR" option

for open source and open public specifications back in the

original review period in October and it was summarily

rejected and dismissed.

 

Actions speak volumes here.  And I'm not buying the

"shocked and dismayed" response from the Board to the

public position of the open source community here.

The Board chose this path and now they have to dig

themselves (gracefully) out of the hole they made.

 

Jamie made the point that as TC Chairs its up to our

members to make the decisions - but they will look to us

for guidance on this - and so we have to be clear that

we can recommend a specific choice too them and

be able to back that up with clear justification of

benefits and lack of pitfalls.

 

DW