I am *much* happier. The basic idea - that the updated spec is not confidential - but that no-one has posted it yet - is actually a pretty good way with dealing with interim drafts. And if thats the case I don't believe there are serious IP concerns over the code that has been contributed.
Thanks for taking the time to explain the situation. I also might recommend that the OSOA org thinks about changing to be more open. My experience from OASIS - where most of everything is open but quite hard to find :-) - is that very few people outside the core working group pay much attention to the interim drafts and that spec groups feel able to publish interim drafts quite openly without the press and/or customers taking much notice till it actually hits a public review or recommended spec. Paul On 6/9/06, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Folks, The SCA specification is developed by a group of collaborators including IBM, BEA, Oracle, SAP, Sybase, IONA and Interface21 (soon to be expanded). The collaborators work under a legal agreement which guides how contributions are made to the specification and also defines how material is made public from the collaboration. The principal goal of the collaboration is the creation and publication of the specification for Service Component Architecture. This specification is published under a royalty free license, permitting anyone to implement the specification and giving them rights to any IP necessarily covered by the specification itself. Contributions from the SCA collaborators (which is taken to mean any employee of any of the collaborating companies) are covered by the legal agreement. It is possible for anyone outside the collaborating companies to contribute to the SCA specification. However, to ensure that the royalty free status of the spec is not compromised by any contributions of this kind, it is necessary for the contributor to sign a feedback license which covers their contribution. This is similar in intent to the ICLAs that are required for contributions of code to Apache. You can see the feedback license by checking out the SCA spec page here: http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/specification/ws-sca/ (see the link to the Feedback page towards the bottom) Regarding the status of material published by the SCA spec collaboration. The collaboration can publish formal levels of the specification (such as the 0.9 level published in November 2005) and it can also publish draft levels (which are regarded as work-in-progress, subject to change), plus associated materials such as White Papers. The decision to publish is made by the collaboration. Regarding the Recursive Assembly model, which has been discussed on this mailing list, this is a set of changes to the specification that have been agreed within the SCA collaboration. An updated draft specification document based on these changes is under preparation and it is expected that this will be published in the near future. In the meantime, the collaboration agreed to the publication of presentation materials which describe the Recursive model and these were presented first at the recent JavaOne conference. It is these materials that form the basis of Jim Marino's presentation that is planned for today. I hope that this clarifies the situation, Yours, Mike. PS As for www.osoa.org, the collaboration are working towards doing something about that - I anticipate there will be more news on this in the near future. Michael Rowley wrote: > Paul, > > I believe you are concerned that we may have all signed NDA agreements > with respect to the specification development work. In fact, the > agreement we signed has a clause that explicitly states that the work > done under the agreement is _not_ confidential. However, we have also > agreed as working principal not to publish spec drafts without agreement > from all of the members (we can approve as many interim drafts as we > like). > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 8:14 PM > To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org > Subject: Re: Project IP, was: Recursive core architectural overview > > Thanks Jeremy > > I fully understand the ICLA and CCLA process. After all as an Apache > Committer I've signed one and I also was involved in pushing Steve > Gerdt at IBM to develop a corporate policy for CLAs when I was at IBM. > > As regards the feedback license, I wasn't questioning the ability for > Apache IP to move to the spec group, though that may be an issue its > not one that I'm concerned with. > > Let me be 100% clear. I am concerned about the committal of IP *into* > Apache from the Spec Group when the spec group has not officially > released this IP. I think the documents from Mike will help clarify > this, so I'll wait and see what Mike sends through. > > Thanks again > > Paul > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
