[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] The sad tail of obtaining licenses for BPEL4WS 1.1mailto:email@example.com
Danny (and all members) I have it on good authority that some large commercial concerns have been tracking all of this. And when I say large I really do mean large. They are users (all of them) and are not impressed. In fact their take is to not use BPEL at all until this is sorted out. This of course leaves us smaller companies, who are helping to get this work ratified as a standard, in a pretty terrible position. What are we to do? Ignore BPEL and try something else? Do nothing in this space commercially until this license debacle is fixed? All the while we are forced to wait because of commercial pressured those companies with bigger pockets can make headway. I must say I am very unimpressed and suggest that Oasis and the authors sort this out as a matter of urgency. Best Steve T On 1 Dec 2003, at 17:30, Danny van der Rijn wrote: > OASIS still owes us a status report on how they're doing at > negotiating with > the authors. they were a no-show at our last face-to-face when that > was on > the agenda. one question on my mind is Can we produce a standard where > licensing is in this kind of shape? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > To: "ws bpel tc" <email@example.com> > Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>; > <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:12 AM > Subject: [wsbpel] The sad tail of obtaining licenses for BPEL4WS > 1.1mailto:email@example.com > > >> Dear all, >> >> A sad tail about the of licensing BPEL4WS1.1. >> >> As some of you may remember the issues of licensing and license >> mechanisms were raised at the start of the TC. We were all assured >> that even though there are 5 authors of the BPEL4WS1.1 specification - >> the base for the TC - we should not worry. It would all be fine and >> the authors would figure out a way to ensure that those who are >> interested would be able to obtain licenses without any real >> hinderance. >> >> So mid Sept2003 I embarked on license discovery. A little known >> process >> to obtain the 5 license agreements from the 5 authors of the >> BPEL4WS1.1 >> specification. >> >> On the web I managed to get licenses from Microsoft (thanks) and BEA >> (thanks). And within a month from SAP (thanks to them also) too. >> >> IBM and Siebel had no web available licensing (as far as I could >> tell). >> I sent in a request to IBM late October, having waited passively for >> some information about the licenses from the TC, and (several people >> and emails later) I am still waiting for a license from IBM. The >> latest >> news, despite the fact that I have an outstanding email into IBM, is >> that a license agreement from them is on the Oasis website (dated June >> 2003!). Why was this not pointed out in October you may ask? A case of >> the X-files and standards you may think. >> >> With Siebel the plot thickens. Finally I got to someone (19th >> November) >> who seemed to know about the license issues. But ... and I know this >> sounds like I made it up .... I finally get a response that says: >> >> "I should have pointed you to Oasis rather than Diane Jordan at IBM." >> >> Which brings me all the way back to the original email I sent to Diane >> late in October. Now I feel like Bill Murray in "Ground Hog Day". >> >> It is a sad tail of how licenses and standards do not mix. >> >> I am now at a loss as to how to proceed. Seems like we now have a >> deadlock. The TC chairs thinking it is the authors responsibility and >> at least one of the authors thinking it is Oasis's responsibility. >> >> If anyone our there has actually succeeded in getting all 5 license >> agreements could they share the secret of their success with the group >> so that we may all contribute on an equal footing. >> >> As to what I think should be done as a minimum ... it is simple. Oasis >> should own the contact points for such license agreements and the >> authors should sign-up to ensuring that this sort of information is >> sorted out *before* they start a TC so that we can play on a level >> playing field. >> >> Best regards >> >> >> Steve Ross-Talbot >> Chief Scientist Enigmatec Corp. >> >> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. >> If you > are not the intended recipient, please do not copy or disclose its > content > but delete the email and contact the sender immediately. Whilst we run > antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable for any > loss or > damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus software. >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster >> of > the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/ > leave_workgroup.php. >> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/ > leave_workgroup.php. > > This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If > you are not the intended recipient, please do not copy or disclose > its content but delete the email and contact the sender immediately. > Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not > liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their > own antivirus software. > This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not copy or disclose its content but delete the email and contact the sender immediately. Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus software.