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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

chairs message

[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]