IPR

["Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>]

Title: Message

[Changing the subject line]

 

Guy,

The intention of the group in its charter is to work royalty free, which means all contributions to the group should be royalty free.

If a contribution is not provided royalty free, the group can decide whether it is willing to accept it or not.

 

As I understand though, you are not making any contribution to the group, simply declaring that you have IPR in this space.

Now its up to member companies to see whether that ipr is essential in implementing the ws-caf specs. If not there is no problem, but  if so we 

as a group are faced with a couple of choices: either take the hit, or design round the IPR.

 

I see no reason why you should withdraw from the group, but if you are making contributions please ensure appropriate declartion are (re) stated.

 

Cheers,

   Martin.

-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Pardon [mailto:guy@atomikos.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Mark Little
Cc: ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org
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.