[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Proposed charter and standing rules
I think a certain fear overtakes us when we contemplate copy-editing legal prose! However, I wonder if we're not missing something if we change the wording in these cases. I will ask knowledgeable folks here, and I suggest that others do the same. One additional note below: Irving Reid wrote: > Minor (I think) language quibbles: > > >>"It is the intention of the TC not to approve any technical >>specification if it believes that the use, distribution, or >>implementation of such specification would necessarily require the >>unauthorized infringement of any third party rights known to > > > I'd replace the previous phrase with > > "...specification would require the infringement of any intellectual > property rights known..." > > >>the TC, and >>such third party has not openly specified and agreed to provide >>necessary license rights on perpetual, royalty-free, > > > "... has not openly agreed to license the necessary rights on a > perpetual..." I actually was the one who added the "openly specified", and my reasoning was that it echoes the OASIS policy: http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.shtml The "specified" means that you can't just say "yeah, yeah, the terms will be reasonable etc."; you have to specify *which* terms you intend to impose. Eve -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441 Web Technologies and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC