David,
The OASIS Board of Directors has an Outreach Committee
that is following up on actions such as you have suggested. The Outreach
Committee has had dialog with executives from Apache Software Foundation last
year. The ASF has numerous projects underway and completed that implement
various OASIS Standards. We also engaged with the Open Source Applications
Foundation and had their Chairman, Mitch Kapor, deliver a keynote at last year's
OASIS Symposium. It is our plan for the Outreach Committee to engage with
appropriate representatives at the Open Source Initiative. If there are
any specific areas of the current IPR Policy that might me revised based on
feedback from OSI or other groups, the OASIS Board's IPR Policy Committee can
look into that.
Again, specific suggestions for revision of the IPR
Policy, or any other OASIS policy, can be discussed on the
or sent directly to the eList.
We will also have feedback time at the Annual General Members meeting on 10 May
during the Symposium week in San Francisco for member
comments.
--
Patrick
Gannon
From: David RR Webber (XML)
[mailto:]
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:14
AM
To: James Bryce Clark
Cc:
Subject: RE: [chairs] Re: OASIS IPR policy
... (transition timing)
Jamie,
So we're just ignoring the issue with OSI and figuring that noone will want
to have an OSI license for OASIS implementations anyway?
I recall a public statement by OASIS that they were going to work with OSI
on this. I guess that's all it was?
Thanks, DW
--------
Original Message --------
Subject: [chairs] Re: OASIS IPR policy ...
(transition timing)
From: James Bryce Clark
<>
Date: Thu, February 23, 2006 7:43
pm
To: ,
At 06:02 AM
2/22/2006, David RR Webber \(XML\) wrote:
>Thanks to Jamie for raising
this on to the agenda again.
>So far only 4 TCs have converted to the
new IPR policy. That leaves the
>remaining 95% of us still
wondering. * * *
David: I think you are incorrectly
attributing the speed with which
TCs transition to some perceived issue
with the 2005 IPR Policy.
Most existing TCs elected to
save the task of an IPR Transition Policy
conversion for a down-time
project. As we reach the 1-year mid-point of
the 2-year conversion
period, you will see more conversions. However, some
TCs also may
choose not to go through the drill, simply because they
anticipate
completing their work and their natural lifespan before April
2007.
Nothing wrong with that, either.
Some pre-2005 TCs have
acted *early* to take on the new IPR Policy,
because they see virtue in
its improved clarity and much stronger mandatory
license provisions.
So do I.
Regards Jamie
~ James
Bryce Clark
~ Director, Standards Development, OASIS
~
