OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-caf message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Re: Minutes Confcall January 19

I agree, it is important to get this right.
As we all know, I _did_ disclose some IP and I do not mean this to be royalty-free, whether people agree that it is relevant or not.

Maybe I should rephrase my remark into a question: is it required of all CAF-TC members to agree to a royalty-free policy for whatever spec comes out?
Personally, I can't do this. Does this mean I should withdraw from this TC?

I realize this has been discussed in a previous confcall, but I couldn't make it for that one. So I apologize if I am bringing up old stuff.


On dinsdag, jan 20, 2004, at 18:24 Europe/Brussels, Mark Little wrote:

My recollection was that the statement by the TC was a little stronger than this: the TC will attempt to make the work RF, but because of the realities, it is possible that someone may not have disclosed IP; the TC can't force this without getting members to sign something, which we can't do (and it isn't covered by an OASIS rule).
I think it's important to get this right because the BPEL analogy isn't the right one (I don't remember this coming up yesterday at all, but may have missed it): from the outset BPEL has not tried to be RF; WS-CAF has.

Dr. Guy Pardon ( guy@atomikos.com )
Atomikos: Your Partner for Reliable eBusiness Coordination

The information in this email is confidential and only meant for the addressee(s). The content of this email is informal and will not be legally binding for Atomikos.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]