Re: [chairs] Re-cap on new policy so far - Q&A

[Peter Michalek <peter@michalek.org>]

I my opinion, 2) Open source software support is essential.

Peter

>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 
>
>
>
>  
>