[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re-cap on new policy so far - Q&A
Gentle folk, At the risk of stirring up festering carcusses again - I'm trying to assess where this all currently stands. I went back in to review everything one more time - bearing in mind Eduardos comments and re-assurances, and all the other postings to date. BTW - I could not find the transition notes online any more http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/members-only/download.php/9623/TC%20Process%2020041007.pdf I'm guessing they got moved somewhere. Moving further down the list here: 1) Text around use of OASIS facilities for TC work - I think we reached concensus that it needs change to more accurately reflect actual practice and use of a mixture of resources by TCs but that final deliverables should always be on line at OASIS. 2) Open source software - we noted that the current restriction on sub-licensing precludes use of OASIS specifications in open source solutions - and that should be removed so that open source implementations are permitted. Maybe we should also pro-actively state that - given the importance and widespread emergence of open source - we are specifically enabling that as a delivery mechanism unless specifically excluded by a TC itself. 3) RAND, RF, et al. Despite Eduardos points - I'm still not totally convinced on any of the three IPR options on offer, simply because they all start from the premise of IPR and then work backwards to saying that after the fact you can have an open public license if you want. To me that is putting lipstick on a pig. Call this a religious preference if you will - but I much prefer a situation where a TC can define its work as being an open public specification from the get-go - and be able to adopt that as its modus operandi - not an IPR-driven approach. The 3 IPR options on offer in my opinion all could lead one to conclude that the TC is condoning IPR as part of its work products. Now this may all be cosmetic and come down to wording - but afterall that is what we are here to discuss. I am still not seeing this being spelled out. So even if this is a re-wording on one of the three IPR options as a sub-varient or whatever - I believe we need that. And I'm not just saying this from my own religious stance. The projects and clients that I have are working from the premise that the specifications they are using are open public and un-burdened by IPR claims. I just cannot reconcile this with any of the IPR modes being offered up right now - since they all start by laying out the mechanisms for IPR management and then only laterly retrofitting after the fact the option to be an open public license. So I have to come back to this again and say we need this to be worded so that TCs can start with supporting open source and open public specifications, and then noting that IPR can be addressed by one of three mechanisms as the need arises (if ever). Whatever way I put the lipstick on the current wording in the three IPR modes - it all sounds like an invitation for people to base their work around IPR and licensing from the outset. Now again - from the religious stance you may argue this is the cruel and mean world that we live in today - and there is no escaping this. That may be so - but when you send your kids to the local school is it designated a "Drug Enforcement Zone" and you are given a liability notice to sign that says that criminals and fellow students may attempt to offer your children drugs, alcohol or other addictive substances, and may assault or other wise harm them? So - it comes back to the fact that I believe that OASIS should advertize that it does allow its TCs to operate as the equivalent of "Drug Free Zones", and that procedures are in place to handle IPR as and when the need arises but that participants can expect that normally it is not expected. I may be the only one with this religious outlook here, but I suspect that my clients and projects are not the rare exception - and that OASIS should be sensitive to the message here - not just the raw legal verbage. While we can say that the W3C, ISO and CEFACT have not got this right either - and this is a tough and gnarly issue - surely that is even more incentive for OASIS to do so - and provide leadership. Thanks, DW
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]