I agree, it is important to get this right.
As we all know, I _did_ disclose some IP and I do not mean this to be royalty-free, whether people agree that it is relevant or not.
Maybe I should rephrase my remark into a question: is it required of all CAF-TC members to agree to a royalty-free policy for whatever spec comes out?
Personally, I can't do this. Does this mean I should withdraw from this TC?
I realize this has been discussed in a previous confcall, but I couldn't make it for that one. So I apologize if I am bringing up old stuff.
Guy
On dinsdag, jan 20, 2004, at 18:24 Europe/Brussels, Mark Little wrote:
My recollection was that the statement by the TC was a little stronger than this: the TC will attempt to make the work RF, but because of the realities, it is possible that someone may not have disclosed IP; the TC can't force this without getting members to sign something, which we can't do (and it isn't covered by an OASIS rule).
I think it's important to get this right because the BPEL analogy isn't the right one (I don't remember this coming up yesterday at all, but may have missed it): from the outset BPEL has not tried to be RF; WS-CAF has.
Mark.
Dr. Guy Pardon ( )
Atomikos: Your Partner for Reliable eBusiness Coordination
http://www.atomikos.com/
The information in this email is confidential and only meant for the addressee(s). The content of this email is informal and will not be legally binding for Atomikos.
