On 7/18/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks for the comments - I will be brief and then we can have follow up exchange as required. comments in-line. Brian McCallister wrote: > Comments in line: > > On Jul 17, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote: > >> == Interactions with the specifications == >> The specification is being developed by group of companies, under a >> contract that requires the resulting work to be published to a >> standards body. > > Which standards body? What licensing terms apply to the spec? The body has not been selected yet, this will be decided by the group working on the Spec. It will be one of the common suspects. This group is set up very similar to Tuscany / SCA setup with some key differences which I will highlight a few in the other answers.
This worries me - accepting an implementation whose specification does not yet have a defined license or containing standards body. Maybe we've done it before though. Afaik, and I know little, I thought there were bodies whose rules were such that we didn't want to work with them. Does that stop us wanting to do implementations? Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
