Re: [docbook] DocBook Technical Committee Meeting Minutes: 17 May 2006

["Michael(tm) Smith" <smith@xml-doc.org>]

Camille B¸«±gnis <camille@neodoc.biz> writes:

> Norman Walsh a ¸«±crit :
> 
> [...]
> 
> > | 8.  Resolve ourselves against the new OASIS IPR policy.
> > |    See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200602/msg00038.html
> > |    Continued from previous meeting.
> > 
> > There are three IPR modes:
> > 
> > - RAND
> > - RF on RAND
> > - RF on Limited Terms
> > 
> > Norm summarizes the state of play and suggests that RF on Limited
> > Terms is our best option. RAND didn't win any support.
> > 
> > No one objects to RF on Limited Terms as a proposal.
> > 
> > We must adopt the new terms by April 2007.
> > 
> > The open question is, are we comfortable with RF on Limited Terms?
> > 
> > Nancy suggests that it isn't ideal, it isn't as open as we might like,
> > but it's much better than ending the TC (our only other choice).
> 
> Why is it so bad to end the TC? (or more precisely to leave OASIS as I
> understand it)

FWIW, I'd also like to suggest that there is always the option of
ending DocBook's association with OASIS and creating a new,
independently chartered, standalone group to maintain it. Or
moving it to another standards body (though I can't say I know
what the value is -- given that DocBook is already mature and
widely accepted -- for maintaining DocBook under the umbrella of
any of the big standards organizations at all).

  --Mike

smime.p7s