Patrick,
Thanks for the clarifications - this is most helpful.
I'll make some enquiries also to help facilitate this as I can using
the channels you have provided.
At least two of the TCs I'm involved with do have members working
with OSI right now.
Thanks, DW
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE:
[chairs] Re: OASIS IPR policy ... (transition timing)
From: "Patrick
Gannon" <>
Date: Fri, February 24,
2006 9:37 am
To: "'David RR Webber (XML)'"
<>
Cc:
<>
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
~
