Lists Home |
Date Index |
One further comment regarding open systems and IP.
If OASIS intends to close up the lists, it should
commensurately change all IP policies to match
perfectly those of the W3C, that is, no RAND; only
RF. Open lists have the advantages that decisions
made with regards to the technology to be spec'd
or standardized have been reviewed prior to incorporation
by the most eyes with the longest possible memory.
Failure of certain groups to widely disseminate
their work in SGML hypertext systems made it possible
for the bogus patents such as the Sun patent on
XML Pointer technology and the Microsoft patent
on stylesheets to make it through the process.
Due diligence is insufficient on the part of the
patenting parties because of the inability or
unwillingness to look deep enough. A well-informed
public is always to be preferred.
Ultimately these decisions will result in a narrowing
of scope for the organizations that work in more
closed groups. Niche specifications that may prove
to be innovations will move onto other public lists
such as Yahoo, or behind closed doors with additional
incentive to patent whereever possible any innovation
with some promise of ROI. Because patent revenues
are lucrative, one must weigh the costs of closure
against incentivizing this already out of control
From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:email@example.com]
Thanks - without seeing the note you refer to I would not be equipped to
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> A note from a chair of a list I participate on.
> One side effect is to limit the participation of
> non-OASIS members regardless of their depth of
> participation or contribution. That can be a
> serious handicap to the niche efforts. It
> would be sad to see the innovations that are
> born of research and experimentation have to
> move to Yahoo.
> I understand the difficulties of constraining
> open lists. I also understand the advantages.
> Far too often what has initially looked like
> yet another lunatic-fringe element has proven
> to be a seminal and important source of ideas
> even where they are in conflict with the immediate
> goals of the corporate membership.