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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

oasis-charter-discuss message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] Nonresponsiveness to Charter IPR Comments

I will second this position.

Perhaps the OASIS IPR boiler-plate should be changed to reflect
that the default policy should be RF, and that the proposers of
a charter should answer (with something more meaningful than the
stock answer) why they have chosen to adopt another IPR method
if they do not use the default.

Let the "standards" market decide before the TC is convened if a
given technology is worth standardizing despite the assertions of
IP by some players.

Arshad Noor
StrongAuth, Inc.

Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> There is a very odd boilerplate response in how some Charter comments are
> addressed.  I'm sure it does not go without notice, but I'm going to call it
> out anyhow.
> When someone says "I do not understand why this needs to be done under RAND
> mode," to say "RAND is a valid OASIS IPR mode" is completely unresponsive.
> It should be assumed that the questioner already knows that. The question
> being asked is "Why is RAND mode adopted as opposed to one of the
> more-lenient and predictable OASIS IPR modes?"
> To beg the question in this way is simply confirming the fears of those who
> ask concerning unspoken agendas and intentions to (reserve the right to)
> extract royalties.  
> This response can continue to be used, but at some point forthrightness and
> transparency would seem to be a preferable approach to creating a charter
> where any sort of broad participation/adoption and support for adoption as
> an eventual OASIS Standard is the objective. If the convener and proposers
> are simply hedging their bets, they should maybe grow up and say it like it
> is, even biting the bullet and make a solid declaration -- there is IP that
> will be asserted or there is and it will be RF on RAND or even RF on Limited
> Terms.  If the potential IP is speculative, commit about that up front so
> others understand what they are walking into and freely contributing into if
> they choose to do that.
>  - Dennis
> Dennis E. Hamilton
> ------------------
> NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability 
> mailto:Dennis.Hamilton@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430 
> http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]