[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
-----Original Message-----I agree, it is important to get this right.
From: Guy Pardon [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:00 AM
To: Mark Little
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Re: Minutes Confcall January 19
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)./smaller>/fontfamily>
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./smaller>/fontfamily>
Dr. Guy Pardon ( email@example.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.