RE: [dss] FW: [dss-comment] Public Comment

It might also be a useful time for any one who is a member of the TC who
has undeclared IP to declare it now.

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [dss] FW: [dss-comment] Public Comment
> From: "Nick Pope" <>
> Date: Fri, April 01, 2005 9:32 am
> To: "John Messing" <>
> Cc: "OASIS DSS TC" <>
> 
> John,
> 
> I think the comment arose from looking at the IPR statements.  I would like
> to say something a bit more encouraging then point at what he already knows.
> But I do recognise that this is a very tricky issue and that generally the
> least said the better.
> 
> I take it that you think the suggested words sticks out my neck too far.
> 
> Nick
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Messing [mailto:]
> > Sent: 01 April 2005 16:09
> > To: Nick Pope
> > Cc: OASIS DSS TC
> > Subject: RE: [dss] FW: [dss-comment] Public Comment
> >
> >
> > I would recommend simply providing a pointer to the page of the TC which
> > discloses IPR and indicate that that is the IPR of which we are aware to
> > date.
> >
> > > -------- Original Message --------
> > > Subject: RE: [dss] FW: [dss-comment] Public Comment
> > > From: "Nick Pope" <>
> > > Date: Fri, April 01, 2005 5:40 am
> > > To: "OASIS DSS TC" <>
> > >
> > > I propose the following response to the IPR question raised below.
> > >
> > > "Whilst it is not possible to make definitive statements
> > regarding IPR we
> > > are not aware of any company requiring payment of royalties for
> > use of the
> > > DSS core protocol."
> > >
> > > Nick Pope
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Nick Pope [mailto:]
> > > > Sent: 21 March 2005 17:40
> > > > To: OASIS DSS TC
> > > > Subject: [dss] FW: [dss-comment] Public Comment
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Forwarding FYI
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From:  [mailto:]
> > > > Sent: 21 March 2005 11:12
> > > > To: 
> > > > Subject: [dss-comment] Public Comment
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Comment from: 
> > > >
> > > > Hello!
> > > >
> > > > I'm writing you because I would like to comment that in the
> > new release of
> > > > the document, it is commented that in the enveloping
> > signature there is a
> > > > new attribute ObjectId. However, this attribute is missing in the new
> > > > schema.
> > > >
> > > > The other comment is that I have some doubts about IPR
> > statements. I have
> > > > being seen them, and I would like to know if the
> > implementation of this
> > > > specification supposes the payment of some royalties to the
> > > > enterprise that
> > > > claims some IPR.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Antonio.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > > generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your
> > TCs in OASIS
> > > at:
> > > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >
> >
> >