Carl, Please bear with me. As a mentor for Tuscany, i am struggling with same kind of issues with SCA. Namely access to the spec, access to influence the spec and moving the spec to an external organization....So let's see if we can derive any lessons learned from our experience.
IANAL, Is there an assurance in the license that all *future* revs to the spec will have the same license? If not how can an Apache project be sure that it can track the spec? Let's say it goes to OASIS, then the spec is "donated" to OASIS and goes under the current IP regime for OASIS which has no guarantee that the future revs to the spec will be implementable in open source. Do you see it differently? thanks, dims On 7/19/06, Carl Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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. This is not true - AMQP has a well defined license and it is posted in the spec, and you can implement the specification freely - without strings. On the topic of - at which standards body it will land at, why is that a concern, as the license of the specification is well defined no matter where it goes Regards Carl. Henri Yandell wrote: > 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]
-- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
