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

[Michael Smith <smith@xml-doc.org>]

Perhaps OASIS could have someone from Software in the Public
Interest/Free Software Foundation or the Open Source Initiative
review the policy.

Peter Michalek <peter@michalek.org> writes:

> 
> 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 
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> 
>

smime.p7s