Hi Patrick,
I don’t know how one could imply
that OASIS is deceiving some companies, by having TCs in OASIS TMS based on RAND. I think we would rather be deceiving them by trying
to convince them that it does not matter that the IPR-mode is different than RAND.
Ultimately, long-standing OASIS members
have to decide whether they want to attract or not more participation from
Telco operators and vendors as members. I think you will agree that such
participation at the moment is very low. So the same long-standing OASIS
members have to decide whether it is more important to stand behind the
prevalent IPR policies in other OASIS TC (e.g. RF-based), or it is more
important to find ways to entice such companies that prefer to work under RAND.
I would defer the RAND
vs. non-RAND debates in OASIS TC until more participation in OASIS is secured –
otherwise you make it a gating factor that will dissuade many to join.
Best regards,
Michael
From: Patrick
Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008
9:28 PM
To: Barbir, Abbie (CAR:1A14)
Cc:
oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re:
[oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?
Abbie,
Abbie Barbir wrote:
> Patrick
> RAND
is a common mode of operation for Telecom industry.
> This has nothing to do with
marketing, it only has to do with allowing
> Telecom providers to operate
in SDO using the same environment that they
> are used to.
>
>
RAND is an *uncommon* mode at OASIS, although
clearly permitted.
Perhaps we have different definitions of *marketing*
if "allowing
Telecom providers to operate in SDO
using the same environments that
they are used to" isn't
marketing.
Quite frankly I would not deceive even a Telecom
provider in order to
get them to participate in OASIS.
The work product of the TC appears to not be subject
to RAND in any
meaningful way.
If it were, that would have been your first response.
So, let's simply tell the Telecom providers the truth,
that RAND is
meaningless for requirements and by
extension for this TC.
Unless there is some problem with truth telling as a
strategy?
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
> Have a nice day
> Regards
> Abbie
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19,
2008 7:25 PM
> To:
oasis-charter-discuss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject:
[oasis-charter-discuss] RAND for Requirements?
>
> Greetings!
>
> The reasons given for RAND for this TC:
>
> Orit Levin:
>
>> 1. This TC is NOT going to
produce any technical specifications.
>> 2. This TC is about
gathering requirements backed up by use cases and
>> scenarios and their
applicability to existing technologies.
>> 3. This TC is about bringing
as many as possible telecoms and vendors
>> working in the Telecom
area who feel most comfortable with RAND to
>> contribute to the
discussion.
>>
> and, Abbie Barbir:
>
>
>> Plus I would add that we
will be dealing with other SDO such as TM
>> Forum, ITU-T etc..
and working closely with them to get requirements
>> from their documents.
These SDO operate under RAND and as such this
>> make the flow of
information between the OASIS SOA TC and the other
>> SDO more fluid.
>>
> Seem very unpersuasive to me.
>
> First, I can't say that I am
familiar with the practice of treating
> requirements as IPR. Can
someone point me to known legal authority for
> the notion that a requirement
is subject to some vendor's IPR? (Granting
> that if I publish a book with
a list of requirements, my statement of
> the requirement may be
copyrighted, i.e., "Text must be presented in a
> *bold* font." (copyright
Patrick Durusau 2008) but the substance of the
> requirement itself, that is
that users want to use *bold* text, I don't
> think is subject to any IPR
claim.)
>
> Second, from what has been
said the TC doesn't intend to produce
> anything that is subject to
any known IPR claim, thereby rendering RAND
> rather meaningless.
>
> Third, following up on Abbie's
comment, is making this TC operate under
> RAND
a marketing strategy to make it more attractive to vendors who
> aren't advised well enough to
realize that requirements are not subject
> to IPR? Or who take false
comfort from committees that operate under
> RAND?
>
> While I am all for marketing
OASIS as much as the next person I think
> offering meaningless RAND on material that cannot be the subject of IPR
> is a very bad marketing
strategy. What do we say to those vendors who
> falsely took our word that the
requirements produced by this TC were
> subject to RAND?
Some dreaded FOSS group implements technology to meet
> those requirements more
cheaply and efficiently than commercial vendors.
>
> Then what do we say? No, let's
be honest up front with all our members,
> even commercial vendors.
>
> BTW, I think anyone who
charters a TC under RAND should have to
specify
> what IP is being contributed
under what conditions so that OASIS members
> can make a determination as to
whether they wish to participate or not.
> As far as I can tell at this
point, neither Microsoft nor Nortel have
> any IP as traditionally
understood to contribute to this TC. So, why the
> RAND?
(Other than for false advertising purposes.)
>
> Hope everyone is having a
great day!
>
> Patrick
>
> --
> Patrick Durusau
> patrick@durusau.net
> Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC
34
> Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3
(Topic Maps)
> Editor, OpenDocument Format TC
(OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
> Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1,
13250-5 (Topic Maps)
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>
>
--
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic
Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC
(OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5
(Topic Maps)