[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] Fwd: RE: ebXML CPPA BALLOT version 2.0 Approval and OASISsubmission
[This is an excerpt, forwarded to the team list for archival purposes.] >Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 11:20:55 -0700 >To: [voting members list] >From: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@mmiec.com> >Subject: RE: ebXML CPPA BALLOT version 2.0 Approval and OASIS submission > >*** [[The ebXML JCC] have asked IBM (through OASIS) for some clarification >on difficult new points raised by the May revised IP statement. The May >revision did resolve the most important March question about royalty-free >use, but in my view, it also introduced several new issues not present in >March. Principally these are an unquantified request for reciprocation, >and a limitation to current versions of the CPPA spec that creates doubt >about future versions and legitimate types of derivative work. I continue >to believe that these are entirely resolvable issues, but the perceived >desire to move v2.0 ahead in the 2nd quarter OASIS schedule is crowding us. > >Last month we noted that we would look for resolution of the IP issues as >part of our decision process for the second vote, which is now upon us. I >am concerned that by an unqualified positive vote, we would be giving IBM >a message that its IP reservations create no material problems. I am >concerned that the foregoing message would be premature, while genuine and >cooperative attempts to clarify the issues are still underway. As they >are. I will hold my votes until the 30th to see if further progress is >made by that time. I would vote in favor of a delay if it is put before >the group. If forced to vote today, prior to any further progress between >OASIS and IBM, I would be inclined to vote for the TC standard and against >its advancement as an OASIS-wide standard. > >All parties involved are attempting to act and resolve matters in good >faith, and without rancor, and for myself I am quite pleased that we are >proceeding in that tone. > >I also will post a copy of this message, minus identifiers of others, to >the archived list in order to maintain an open record. > >Regards Jamie Clark > >~ James Bryce Clark >~ VP and General Counsel, McLure-Moynihan Inc. www.mmiec.com >~ Chair, ABA Business Law Subcommittee on Electronic Commerce >~ www.abanet.org/buslaw/cyber/ecommerce/ecommerce.html >~ 1 818 597 9475 jamie.clark@mmiec.com jbc@lawyer.com >~ This message is neither legal advice nor a binding signature. Ask me why.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC