Re: [ws-caf] Re: Minutes Confcall January 19

Guy, I think the discussion is a valid one to have. 
However, my comments are purely about the minutes of the meeting being an 
accurate reflection of what was said at that meeting.

 

Mark.

  
----- Original Message ----- 

  
From: 
  Guy Pardon 

  
To: Mark Little 

  
Cc:  
  

  
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:00 
  AM

  
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] Re: Minutes 
  Confcall January 19

  

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.