Re-cap on new policy so far - Q&A

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Gentle folk,
 
At the risk of stirring up festering carcusses again - I'm trying to 
 assess where this all currently stands.
 
 I went back in to review everything one more time - bearing in mind 
 Eduardos comments and  re-assurances, and all the other postings to date.
 
 BTW - you can find the relevant doc's online here:
 
  http://www.oasis-open.org/members/

but the link I had to the transition policy PDF no longer works - I'm
guessing it changed somewhere in Kavi.
 
 Moving further down the list here:
 
 1) Text around use of OASIS facilities for TC work - I think we reached 
 concensus that it needs change to more accurately reflect actual practice 
and use of a mixture of resources by TCs but that final deliverables should
always be on line at OASIS.
 
 2) Open source software - we noted that the current restriction on 
    sub-licensing precludes use of OASIS specifications
    in open source solutions - and that should be removed so that open 
   source implementations are permitted.  Maybe
   we should also pro-actively state that - given the importance and 
   widespread emergence of open source - we are
   specifically enabling that as a delivery mechanism unless 
   specifically excluded by a TC itself.
 
 3) RAND, RF, et al.  Despite Eduardos points - I'm still not totally 
    convinced on any of the three IPR options on offer,
    simply because they all start from the premise of IPR and then work 
    backwards to saying that after the fact you can
    have an open public license if you want.  To me that is putting 
    lipstick on a pig.
 
   Call this a religious preference if you will - but I much prefer a 
   situation where a TC can define its work as being
   an open public specification from the get-go - and be able to 
   adopt that as its modus operandi - not an IPR-driven
   approach. 
 
   The 3 IPR options on offer in my opinion all could lead one to 
   conclude that the TC is condoning IPR
   as part of its work products.  Now this may all be cosmetic and 
   come down to wording - but afterall that is what
   we are here to discuss.

   I am still not seeing this being spelled out.  So even if this is 
   a re-wording on one of the three IPR options as
   a sub-varient or whatever - I believe we need that.   And I'm not 
   just saying this from my own religious stance.
 
   The projects and clients that I have are working from the premise 
   that the specifications they are using are
  open public and un-burdened by IPR claims.   I just cannot 
  reconcile this with any of the IPR modes being
  offered up right now - since they all start by laying out the 
  mechanisms for IPR management and then only
  laterly  retrofitting after the fact the option to be an open 
  public license.
 
  So I have to come back to this again and say we need this to be 
  worded so that TCs can start with supporting
  open source and open public specifications, and then noting 
  that IPR can be addressed by one of three mechanisms
  as the need arises (if ever).
 
 Whatever way I put the lipstick on the current wording in the 
 three IPR modes - it all sounds like an invitation
for people to base their work around IPR and licensing from 
 the outset.   Now again - from the religious stance
you may argue this is the cruel and mean world that we live 
 in today - and there is no escaping this.
 
That may be so - but when you send your kids to the local 
 school is it designated a "Drug Enforcement Zone" and
you are given a liability notice to sign that says that 
 criminals and fellow students may attempt to offer your
children drugs, alcohol or other addictive substances, and 
 may assault or other wise harm them?
             
So - it comes back to the fact that I believe that OASIS 
 should advertize that it does allow its TCs to
operate as the equivalent of "Drug Free Zones", and that 
 procedures are in place to handle IPR as and
when the need arises but that participants can expect 
 that normally it is not expected.
 
I may be the only one with this religious outlook here, 
 but I suspect that my clients and projects are not
the rare exception - and that OASIS should be sensitive to 
 the message here - not just the raw legal verbage.
 
 While we can say that the W3C, ISO and CEFACT have not 
 got this right either - and this is a tough and
gnarly issue - surely that is even more incentive for 
 OASIS to do so - and provide leadership.
 
 Thanks, DW