[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] [Fwd: [regrep-semantic] IBM BI-ICS]
Chiusano Joseph wrote: >+1 on the instability points. Examples that I like to point to are DIME >and WS-Attachments - which are no longer supported by Microsoft and are >reported as being superceded by MTOM[1], and WS-Routing whose features >were reported at one time to be incorporated into WS-ReliableMessaging, >but are now reported to be out of scope[2]. I have a *hunch* that if >these specifications (meaning DIME and WS-Routing) were in an open >standards consortium such as OASIS or W3C, their stability would be more >assured. > > Instability of "specifications that masquerade as pseudo-standards" (SMPS - pronouncd SIMPS?) is another good point but not the one I was emphasizing.... The main point I was making is that the process is not transparent with these SMPS. Changes are slipped in without notifying the public, based upon decisions made by parties colluding behind closed doors. Such changes, decisions and the motives behind them will typically never be known to the general public. -- Regards, Farrukh >Joe > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-soap12-mtom-20040209/ >[2] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-03-11-a.html >(search on "Routing) > >Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > >>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 >> >>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php. >> >> > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php. > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]