[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 Arshad's enhanced position to Dennis' original position. Transparency in the standards process should be cultivated from the very beginning of a new standard. Thank you both for raising this important issue. Arshad Noor wrote: > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 -- Regards, Farrukh Najmi Web: http://www.wellfleetsoftware.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]