RE: [rights-requirements] FW: Rights Requirements Submission

[Hal Lockhart <hal.lockhart@entegrity.com>]

Title: RE: [rights-requirements] FW: Rights Requirements Submission

> Thomas Hardjono wrote:

> In my experience most (if not all) standards groups are open to
> representation from the academic community.  Its a matter of *people*
> (academic or industry) participating and contributing work.
> This is true to the IETF and IEEE.

I didn't mean to imply anything to the contrary. We have a number of members from the academic community in XACML, but it had been observed that there were none in the RLTC. In fact OASIS's individual memberships make participation particularly attractive.

> I am also aware that some organizations are industry-driven
> in the sense
> that their membership consists of stake-holders who have an
> investment/stake
> in the specific technology and in getting the technology deployed.
>
> Having academic representation does not guarantee anything. 
> Many of the
> folks in standards groups work for their R&D department, and many have
> PhDs and do research & publish papers.

Don't disagree with any of this. However, it is a fact that there have been comments (not by me) that since we had no academics, we would not properly appreciate the requirements of that community. I think the fact that we just received a new set of requirements from Patrick tends to support that view.

> With regards to fair use, as far as I understand a RL
> language expresses
> rights, and thus can be use used to encode the rights of both the
> rights-holders and the fair-use-rights of the consumers.

Well "can do" and "does do" are not the same thing. See my other messages.

Hal