+1
I’ve just come off a panel today here in Brussels arguing
that this is precisely one of the strengths of OASIS – the transparency of its
process, IPR models and disclosure rules. I don’t see anything in the proposal
to use RAND (whatever my own views about RAND might be) that conflicts with
that.
Regards,
Peter
|
|
Peter F Brown Managing
Director Pensive
S.A. |
||||||
|
Supporting the Information-Driven Enterprise |
|||||||
|
Pensive: - Thoughtful
People - Thoughtful
Solutions |
|
||||||
|
Pensive S.A.
is registered in Belgium, N° 895.677.610 (RPM Brussels) Registered
Office: Avenue de
Mercure 13/13, B-1180
Brussels Correspondence/Visits:
Avenue Brugmann, 382, B-1180 Brussels |
|||||||
This email and any
attachments are confidential to the intended recipient and may also be
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient please delete it from your
system and notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any purpose
nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person.
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Knight [mailto:paul.knight@nortel.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 5:15 PM
To: oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [oasis-member-discuss] Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for
Requirements?
Hi all,
While various philosophical and personal opinions on IPR
modes can be
entertainingly and/or passionately promoted, the OASIS
process is pretty
clear. OASIS members can either join or not join a
proposed TC, and can
make that decision based on the subject matter, the IPR
mode, or any
other factor.
In this case, several of the TC proposers want to work in
the RAND mode,
and not in the RF mode. There is no requirement for the
IPR mode to be
explained, although several of the proposers have
provided information
about it. It really does not matter whether other OASIS
members agree
or not, or whether they feel the reasons are
"legitimate."
One of the strengths of OASIS is the freedom for groups
of members to
form TCs to work on areas of interest. There is no
"right of veto" for
anyone (not the Board of Directors, the Technical
Advisory Board, or the
opinion of other members), as long as the TC follows the
process for
getting started.
Patrick mentions something about OASIS
"accepting" TC proposals. There
is no "acceptance" process. There is an
opportunity for members to
discuss the charter, and that discussion has been taking
place on the
proper mailing list [oasis-charter-discuss], and is now
reflected in
this member-discuss list, which is okay, as long as the
message volume
doesn't get too high.
If an OASIS member does not like the proposed TC, they
should not join
it. If a member wishes to create a similar TC with a
different IPR
mode, that is certainly their right.
OASIS is a light-weight "organization for the
advancement of structured
information standards," and I believe most of the
members would like to
focus on their areas of technical interest, rather than
trying to
enforce ideological or business-process conformity on
other members.
Kind regards,
Paul Knight
Standards Advisor, Nortel Enterprise Solutions, CTO/CSO
Email paul.knight@nortel.com
Telephone +1 978 288 6414
Director, Organization for the Advancement of Structured
Information
Standards (OASIS)
OASIS email: paul.knight@oasis-open.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 8:52 AM
To: Barbir, Abbie (CAR:1A14)
Cc: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org;
oasis-member-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [oasis-member-discuss] Re:
[oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for
Requirements?
Abbie,
How odd. My "pre-set opinion/judgment on IPR
modes?"
My objection was that RAND is *meaningless* for this TC.
Requirements by definition are not subject to RAND. What
part of that is
unclear?
Your counter is a marketing claim that telecom providers
are comfortable
with it.
Being inclusive does not mean agreeing to whatever terms
some arbitrary
proposal makes. Any more than consensus means (in ISO)
that if the FOSS
community disagrees there isn't consensus. It cuts both
ways. Of course
OASIS can be inclusive without blindly accepting every TC
proposal, of
course ISO can have consensus even when the FOSS
community disagrees.
Neither organization should be held hostage to the views
of others, for
fear of not being "inclusive" or not having
"consensus."
If you and your supporters have some legitimate reason
why the RAND mode
is applicable to requirements, I am sure there are a
number of us who
would like to hear it.
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
Abbie Barbir wrote:
> Patrick,
>
> Well Telecom providers already know what their IPR
commitments will be
> if they join this TC.
> It seems to me that you think that they are joining
a RAND TC for the
> first time in their lives.
>
> In addition, it seems to me that you think that
every RAND work will
> result in royalties.
>
> If you get over your pre-set opinion/judgment on IPR
modes, you can
see
> that in order for OASIS to be inclusive, it has to
be willing to work
> with companies in the IPR modes that they are
comfortable with.
>
> Being deceiving is when you want to paint the world
in your own color
> and by refusing to see others points or allow them
to work in the IPR
> mode that they are comfortable with.
>
> Quite frankly, it is totally un-professional of you
to accuse people
of
> being decieving just because they choose a supported
OASIS IPR mode
that
> you do not agree with.
>
> I hope you have a nice day.
>
> Cheers
> Abbie
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 9:28 PM
> To: Barbir, Abbie (CAR:1A14)
> Cc: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for
Requirements?
>
> Abbie,
>
> Abbie Barbir wrote:
>
>> Patrick
>> RAND is a common mode of operation for Telecom
industry.
>> This has nothing to do with marketing, it only
has to do with
allowing
>>
>
>
>> Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the
same environment that
>> they are used to.
>>
>>
>>
> RAND is an *uncommon* mode at OASIS, although
clearly permitted.
>
> Perhaps we have different definitions of *marketing*
if "allowing
> Telecom providers to operate in SDO using the same
environments that
> they are used to" isn't marketing.
>
> Quite frankly I would not deceive even a Telecom
provider in order to
> get them to participate in OASIS.
>
> The work product of the TC appears to not be subject
to RAND in any
> meaningful way.
>
> If it were, that would have been your first
response.
>
> So, let's simply tell the Telecom providers the
truth, that RAND is
> meaningless for requirements and by extension for
this TC.
>
> Unless there is some problem with truth telling as a
strategy?
>
> Hope you are having a great day!
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>> Have a nice day
>> Regards
>> Abbie
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Patrick Durusau
[mailto:patrick@durusau.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 7:25 PM
>> To: oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: [oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for
Requirements?
>>
>> Greetings!
>>
>> The reasons given for RAND for this TC:
>>
>> Orit Levin:
>>
>>
>>> 1. This TC is NOT going to produce any
technical specifications.
>>> 2. This TC is about gathering requirements
backed up by use cases
and
>>>
>
>
>>> scenarios and their applicability to
existing technologies.
>>> 3. This TC is about bringing as many as
possible telecoms and
vendors
>>>
>
>
>>> working in the Telecom area who feel most
comfortable with RAND to
>>> contribute to the discussion.
>>>
>>>
>> and, Abbie Barbir:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Plus I would add that we will be dealing
with other SDO such as TM
>>> Forum, ITU-T etc.. and working closely with
them to get
requirements
>>>
>
>
>>> from their documents. These SDO operate
under RAND and as such this
>>> make the flow of information between the
OASIS SOA TC and the other
>>> SDO more fluid.
>>>
>>>
>> Seem very unpersuasive to me.
>>
>> First, I can't say that I am familiar with the
practice of treating
>> requirements as IPR. Can someone point me to
known legal authority
for
>>
>
>
>> the notion that a requirement is subject to some
vendor's IPR?
>> (Granting that if I publish a book with a list
of requirements, my
>> statement of the requirement may be copyrighted,
i.e., "Text must be
>> presented in a
>> *bold* font." (copyright Patrick Durusau
2008) but the substance of
>> the requirement itself, that is that users want
to use *bold* text, I
>> don't think is subject to any IPR claim.)
>>
>> Second, from what has been said the TC doesn't
intend to produce
>> anything that is subject to any known IPR claim,
thereby rendering
>> RAND rather meaningless.
>>
>> Third, following up on Abbie's comment, is
making this TC operate
>> under RAND a marketing strategy to make it more
attractive to vendors
>> who aren't advised well enough to realize that
requirements are not
>> subject to IPR? Or who take false comfort from
committees that
operate
>>
>
>
>> under RAND?
>>
>> While I am all for marketing OASIS as much as
the next person I think
>> offering meaningless RAND on material that
cannot be the subject of
>> IPR is a very bad marketing strategy. What do we
say to those vendors
>> who falsely took our word that the requirements
produced by this TC
>> were subject to RAND? Some dreaded FOSS group
implements technology
to
>>
>
>
>> meet those requirements more cheaply and
efficiently than commercial
>>
> vendors.
>
>> Then what do we say? No, let's be honest up
front with all our
>> members, even commercial vendors.
>>
>> BTW, I think anyone who charters a TC under RAND
should have to
>> specify what IP is being contributed under what
conditions so that
>> OASIS members can make a determination as to
whether they wish to
>>
> participate or not.
>
>> As far as I can tell at this point, neither
Microsoft nor Nortel have
>> any IP as traditionally understood to contribute
to this TC. So, why
>> the RAND? (Other than for false advertising
purposes.)
>>
>> Hope everyone is having a great day!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>> --
>> Patrick Durusau
>> patrick@durusau.net
>> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
>> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor,
OpenDocument Format
TC
>>
>
>
>> (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor,
ISO/IEC 13250-1,
>> 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must
leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all
your TCs in OASIS at:
>>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Patrick Durusau
> patrick@durusau.net
> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
> Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project
Editor ISO/IEC 26300
> Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
>
>
>
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor
ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in
OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
OASIS TC that
generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in
OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php