OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion


Howard, Steve,
My suggestion:
1. Vote in favor of the revised motion (as stated by Donald, below) at this
Wed's conf call
2. Attend the BoF at the F2F on May 28/29 to help figure out what this is
all about

Or, suggest a revision to the revised motion.

HTH,
Rand

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard N Smith [mailto:howard.smith@ontology.org] 
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:37 AM
To: steve@enigmatec.net
Cc: Rand Anderson; 'Sally St. Amand'; donald.steiner@webv2.com
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion 

Steve,

What is all this about? Either the spec is royalty free or it is not.
All BPMI.org specs are royalty free, including BPML which is already ahead
of WSBPEL in any case in terms of fitness for purpose, functionality etc.

Howard

At 14:24 19/05/2003 +0100, Steve Ross-Talbot wrote:
>All:
>
>Generally I support the changes but only if the most pressing question
>is asked first. It really is a two stage process. We need to know if the
>license and royalty restrictions that may be in place can be removed. If
>they cannot then the other things follow. But the simple question is to
>ask for license and royalty free access.
>
>Cheers
>
>Steve T
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rand Anderson [mailto:randerson@macgregor.com] 
>Sent: 19 May 2003 14:07
>To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>Cc: 'Sally St. Amand'; 'donald.steiner@webv2.com'
>Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion 
>
>
>+1 on this revised motion - clean and clear, it is appropriately more
>general in scope. The BoF can then refine and recommend the appropriate
>objectives related to licensing for the TC, based on initial input from
>those interested.
>
>I wouldn't say that working out licensing issues is part of the purpose
>of this TC, but they (the issues) certainly are relevant to the traction
>dimension of the protocol as a proposed standard. I personally would
>like to
>*start* by just understanding how the licensing terms will affect
>implementers and adopters, before jumping into trying to influence the
>terms themselves.
>
>Rand
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Donald Steiner [mailto:donald.steiner@webv2.com] 
>Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 5:13 PM
>To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>Cc: 'Sally St. Amand'
>Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion 
>
>
>This seems a bit overly complicated to me (understandably so, as it was
>dynamically pieced together from the various suggestions during the
>course of the call this morning).
>
>I would propose the following rather broad remit, and leave it up to the
>BoF to follow through on other suggestions (e.g. proposing to drop all
>licensing restrictions, which IMHO would be quite unusual). 
>
>
>"The TC recommends creation of a Birds of a Feather group (BoF) to
>examine licensing issues related to the BPEL4WS v1.1 specification as
>submitted at the first meeting and implementations thereof. To aid in
>this process:
>
>1) TC chairs will request details of the current licensing terms from
>the 5 original submitting members, which should be made available to the
>TC membership before the next face-to-face meeting.
>2) The BoF shall be open to the TC membership.
>3) The BoF shall consider comments from the TC membership, which shall
>be submitted by email or in person.
>4) When practical and possible, the legal representatives of the
>submitting members should be made available to discuss the observations
>and/or recommendations of the BoF.
>5) The BoF group shall meet at the next face-to-face meeting."
>
>
>Personally, I would like to see the original submitters publish a joint
>licensing agreement that is automatically offered to anybody using the
>specs. (Note, this does not say what the details of said license
>agreement would be, it would just make things un-bureaucratic and
>transparent as far as the formalities are concerned.)
>
>Best,
>
> - Donald
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>From: Sally St. Amand [mailto:sallystamand@yahoo.com] 
>Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 11:35 AM
>To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion 
>
>
>On the conference call scheduled for 5/21 a MOTION ON LICENSING be
>introduced. The Motion is
>
>The TC Co-Chairs will ask each of the 5 companies licensing the BPEL
>v1.1 specifications 1) if they are willing to remove the licensing
>restrictions, and 2) for a contact who can represent the company in
>discussions with the TC on this issue. A Birds of a Feather (BoF) group
>be formed from the member of the TC Committee to obtain information and
>get clarification from the 5 companies who are licensing the BPEL v1.1
>specification. The initial information to include a draft version of
>each of the 5 companies licensing agreements. 
>The BoF group to make available to all TC members each and all versions
>of the licensing agreements for the BPEL v1.1 specification. In addition
>the BoF group will serve as the focal point for receiving questions on
>the issue of licensing and getting clarification, for creating
>mechanisms to publicize the issue to TC members and the public at-large,
>and for specifying the need for legal assistance if warranted. The BoF
>group will take comments and questions by email, and will meet at the
>face-to-face.
>************************************************************************
>*******
>Send your revisions and comments to at least me, Diane or John. A
>consensus motion will be on the agenda for the conference call. 
>Sally
>
>
>
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
>This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If
>you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose its
>content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately. Whilst
>we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable for
>any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus
>software.
>
>
>
>This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you
are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose its content
but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately. Whilst we run
antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable for any loss or
damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus software.

---

New Book - Business Process Management: The Third Wave
www.bpm3.com

Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org
cell             +44 7711 594 494 (worldwide)
home office +44 20 8660 1963


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]