Re: [regrep] [Fwd: [regrep-semantic] IBM BI-ICS]

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Anne Thomas Manes wrote:

> For the most part I prefer to reference standards works as opposed to 
> private works, but I make exception for some things -- especially when 
> they provide essential functionality AND when they contain an open 
> copyright notice. Such is the case with WS-Addressing.
>
> WS-Addressing provides essential functionality -- a standard mechanism 
> to reference a Web service endpoint. In my opinion, it's one of the 
> most critical WS specifications published last year. I am not aware of 
> any competitive effort that is currently defining this type of mechanism.
>
> And I suggest you read the copyright notice [1]. It the most open spec 
> notice I've ever seen.
>
> [1] 
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnglobspec/html/ws-addressing.asp 
>
>
> Anne

Anne,

I do not see how you call it the most open spec notice you've
ever seen. Nowadays copyright notices as pretty open (except in the 
music industry
of course ;)) It's when it comes to patent claims and licenses that 
things get
sticky.

On surface this one seems ok there are some disturbing aspects
there that should be taken into account. First of all, this same spec,
same version, same date (13 March 2003) used to carry a very different 
notice
(and I have a PDF copy that I downloaded from one of their sites in mid 
2003 that
proves it). The notice in that version said and I quote:

"EXCEPT FOR THE COPYRIGHT LICENSE GRANTED ABOVE, THE AUTHORS DO NOT 
GRANT, EITHER
EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, A LICENSE TO ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 
INCLUDING PATENTS,
THEY OWN OR CONTROL."

So yes, they changed above notice to a much better one, no doubt, 
(although I would
really like to know what "commercially reasonable terms and conditions" 
means
and why it replaces the much more common "reasonable and 
non-discriminatory terms",
and why you consider it so amazingly open. It seems that this language 
still
allows them to reserve the right to impose discriminatory terms. Do not 
you agree?

What is most disturbing is that the specification was changed in the 
middle of the night,
as it were, with no notice, no versioning and no date change;

*This* is precisely one of the main problems with these type of
specifications that masquerade as pseudo-standards: their authors can 
change them at a
moment's notice and they don't have to tell anybody. There is no 
accountability.
There is no control.

Oh, and let's not forget that WS-Addressing has a normative reference to 
WS-Policy,
which last time I checked, still carried that no-grant notice either. 
But wait....
maybe they changed it since I last looked. Let me check...

Indeed it still says:
 
"EXCEPT FOR THE COPYRIGHT LICENSE GRANTED ABOVE, THE AUTHORS DO NOT 
GRANT, EITHER
EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, A LICENSE TO ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 
INCLUDING PATENTS,
THEY OWN OR CONTROL."

So the notice is still there, but who knows what else has changed since 
last time we
looked at it? And who knows what might change tonight?

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh