OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] don't lump the W3C with OASIS and WS-I on IPR

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

RIght on both points.  The W3C fought to get RF as the mainstay
of their IP policy with the necessary caveat that if there was no other way, they
could accept an encumbered specification once it finally understood the
environment it brought into being.   ISO, a real standards organization
by any definition, will accept encumbered IP.   That is why I think the community
if not the industry should create definitions for terms such as standard and
specification that reflect all of the dimensions we have been discussing.  Because
the press does abuse these terms, abuses the history of the development,
and tends towards persons over events, it is up to the professionals and
laity alike to create definitions that fit the processes we know to be both
effective and ethically persuasive.
The standards organizations and the IP keiretsu can work together under
such understandings, but for this to be effective, we have do diminish such
terms as "killer app" which do not reflect the realities of technical ecosystems
in environments designed by intension for integration.  
Is this level of maturity achievable with open and inclusive policies for
participation?  As I said, I've no tears for what is happening now because
too many of us here had a hand in creating this environment.   I do
applaud those who will now take the time to fix what can be fixed.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.  Your interview is exactly the
right thing at exactly the right time.

From: Bob Glushko [mailto:glushko@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU]
I think that Martin Lamonica got more things right with this interview than any one I've ever done,  and I especially enjoyed the fact that he let me blame reporters for abusing "standard" in place of "specification."

But I do want to correct one thing that I don't think I said exactly the way he reports it here.   I do think it is fair to say that neither OASIS, W3C, nor WS-I are standards organizations according to the definition I advanced here.  But I don't think it is fair to lump the W3C in with WS-I  on either openness or IP terms, and I'd hate for people to make that inference.   The W3C worked very hard to put a royalty-free policy in place while OASIS and WS-I have aggressively resisted one.

And of  course, as I pointed out,  being a "real" standards body doesn't imply that you have a reasonable IP policy either or an acceptable level of openness.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS