|
Guy, I think the discussion is a valid one to have.
However, my comments are purely about the minutes of the meeting being an
accurate reflection of what was said at that meeting.
Mark.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:00
AM
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.
Guy
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.
Mark.
Dr.
Guy Pardon ( guy@atomikos.com )
Atomikos: Your Partner for Reliable
eBusiness Coordination
http://www.atomikos.com/
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.
|