Is "Defensive RF" the answer to the OASIS IPR impasse?

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Following on from the past weeks discussion and notes around the
experience of the use of SAML.  It seems clear that large user
corporations and governments have an aversion to any standard that has
licensing requirement from individual companies that they must action.
 
This clearly limits any OASIS standard adoption where there are specific
licensing needed.
 
Whereas the current OASIS IPR choices really do not make this clear - in
fact the opposite - the door appears to be open where future impediments
may be added at an unknown time by participating contributors.
 
We heard again the argument that - "why work on a standard if then it
has to be scrapped because of some IPR that later arises?"
 
Conversely one could say that in the case of things like SAML where any
non-RF licensing will effectively scrap the use anyway - then we have
to be pragmatic and say we need an IPR policy where adopters know that
- contributors to the OASIS work do so solely on the basis of RF only
and that is enshrined in the charter and modus operandi of the TC that
their participation is on that basis alone.
 
Hence - the TC would only accept work on the basis of RF, and beyond
that if IPR issues arise those will either require an RF agreement, or
the TC work will be changed to avoid that IPR and not include it.
 
Having that level of clear statement in the IPR-mode options is what we
appear to be missing today - as evidenced by the experience with SAML.
 
Cordially, DW