IPR

Title: Message

[Changing the subject line]

 

Guy,

The 
intention of the group in its charter is to work royalty free, which means all 
contributions to the group should be royalty free.

If a 
contribution is not provided royalty free, the group can decide whether it is 
willing to accept it or not.

 

As 
I understand though, you are not making any contribution to the group, 
simply declaring that you have IPR in this space.

Now 
its up to member companies to see whether that ipr is essential in implementing 
the ws-caf specs. If not there is no problem, but  if so we  

as a 
group are faced with a couple of choices: either take the hit, or design 
round the IPR.

 

I see 
no reason why you should withdraw from the group, but if you are making 
contributions please ensure appropriate declartion are (re) 
stated.

 

Cheers,

   Martin.

  

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Guy Pardon 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:00 
  AM
To: Mark Little
Cc: 
  
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.