RE: [election-services] NEW IPR POLICY

["Borras, John" <John.Borras@legsb.gov.uk>]

David

 

I do not intend to move on the IPR change until we have v4 through its approval processes, but I do feel if we are then to go on and do further enhancements with EML and any work with IEEE we should do that activity under the new policy arrangements.  But as I said this is down to a TC decision, not mine, and I'll take further soundings on that in the New Year.

 

Any suggestion that we should await for the Board to change their minds is perhaps over optimistic as I'm not aware its even on their current agenda.

 

John

 

 -----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: 22 November 2005 13:29
To: Borras, John
Cc: election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [election-services] NEW IPR POLICY

John,

 

Clarification.

 

We have two years in which to make the transition.

 

I'd rather not stir up a hornets nest here. 

 

I see no reason for us to adopt the new IPR at this moment - and certainly not to change the rules until the V4.0 is formally approved.

 

Also - we would want to know if the new IPR RF wording causes any issues for IEEE if we going to be hoping to work with them too.

 

It's a case here of not jumping into the new ship until we know for sure it is seaworthy!!

 

Thanks,

 

DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [election-services] NEW IPR POLICY
From: "Borras, John" <John.Borras@legsb.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, November 22, 2005 3:02 am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>
Cc: <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>

David

 

The OASIS Board have issued the new IPR Policy and also a Transition Policy.  I'm only following those directives.  If the TC wishes to continue its existence then we have to move to one of the new IPR modes, or else we close down.  The choice of which mode is for the TC to make.  I'm just expressing my opinion that I think RF is the right one for us, but I'm open to persuasion.  Do I sense that you would not prefer the RF mode and would chose one of the other modes?

 

John

-----Original Message-----
From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info]
Sent: 21 November 2005 17:58
To: Borras, John
Cc: election-services@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [election-services] NEW IPR POLICY

John,

 

Sorry I missed the call.  I had project production issues that I had to attend to.

 

Why are we rushing to embrace the RF IP mode?

 

Seems to me this just potentially gets us into problems - rather than solves problems - especially WRT OSI licensing of open source implementations of EML. 

 

None of this has been resolved by the OASIS board to my knowledge - in fact worse - the OSI and OASIS are supposed to be talking to each other to fix the wording and policy issues - and they are just not doing so.

 

Since we already have grandfathered in our current status - I'm not at all clear what we are trying to "solve" here - my take is that let sleeping dogs lay where they are for now.

 

Are we under pressure from OASIS staff to make a choice?  I see no purpose to this right now.

 

Thanks, DW

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [election-services] NEW IPR POLICY
From: "Borras, John" <John.Borras@legsb.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, November 21, 2005 11:51 am
To: <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>

Following up our discussion today on the conference call about the new IPR policy, ( see http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php ) can you all please take a close look at the new policy and let me know if going forward under the RF Mode would cause you any problems.  We can opt for one of the other modes if necessary but RF would seem the most appropriate to me.  Following any comments from you I'll post a formal vote to make the transition.

 

John

 

 

 

"The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you receive this email by mistake please notify the sender and delete it immediately. Opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Local e-Government Standards Body. All sent and received email from the Local e-Government Standards Body is automatically scanned for the presence of computer viruses and security issues."

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

"The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you receive this email by mistake please notify the sender and delete it immediately. Opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Local e-Government Standards Body. All sent and received email from the Local e-Government Standards Body is automatically scanned for the presence of computer viruses and security issues."

"The information in this email is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you receive this email by mistake please notify the sender and delete it immediately. Opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Local e-Government Standards Body. All sent and received email from the Local e-Government Standards Body is automatically scanned for the presence of computer viruses and security issues."