Re: [ebxml-msg] FW: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure

["Anders W. Tell" <anderst@toolsmiths.se>]

I second this request for consideration, there is serious risk of spillover effects.

By searching for CPA in the MSH 2.0 Spec it looks relativly easy to replace references to CPP and 
CPA with more general statements not coverd by the current IPR.

The CPPA stuf may easily be moved into an appendix containing bindings to technical interface 
descriptions technologies (WSDL, OMG IDL, CPPA,...).

Regards
/anders

David Fischer wrote:

> We need to seriously consider whether we require CPPA in Messaging.  If IBM
> requires a license to use CPPA, that could easily transfer to Messaging based
> upon this requirement.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Fischer [mailto:david@drummondgroup.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:45 AM
> To: ebxml-cppa@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: Rik Drummond
> Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] IBM patent disclosure
> 
> 
> I logged on this morning to vote yes on the specification.  Now I am going to
> abstain.
> 
> I gather that the very existence of this technology is what IBM claims and there
> is nothing we can change in the specification to obviate IBMs claim -- they
> claim the whole document even though they had a minor role in developing it.
> 
> IBM is going to require anyone who uses CPPA to obtain a license?  This makes
> IBM the owner of CPPA!  Marty has assured us that the cost will be zero, yet IBM
> is not willing to make this assurance in writing.  Rest assured then, the cost
> will not always be zero.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> David Fischer
> Drummond Group.
> 



-- 
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
/  Anders W. Tell , Financial Toolsmiths AB             /
/ <anderst@toolsmiths.se>,<www.toolsmiths.se>           /
/ Open ebXML Laboratory: <www.openebxmllab.org>         /
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/