cti-interoperability — archive

[Robin Cover]

Duncan, Very narrowly, just on this question > Would it be possible to  have both? From the OASIS Staff (policy) point of view: yes, it's possible, and a couple groups are (effectively) doing this, though not in so many words.  TCs can request as any public GitHub repositories as they want, of both types. My summary, possibly subject to correction/clarification For "Open Source" repos and "TC Repos": The different opportunities and requirements for participation are actually substantial, even if, in today's world, few of the technical solutions created under our open source licensing OR under OASIS common IPR Modes (e.g., Non-Assert) involve patented or patentable technology that's declared or otherwise impactful -- arguably, and with some exceptions and caveats. I'm copying out a few of the FAQs that were written for OASIS TC Open Repositories about getting content "from" a repo of Type-A into a repo of Type-B.   Content that's developed in one is not automatically candidate for the other (no solution for auto-sync), but when participants/members think the licensing of one is commensurable with the licensing of the other, content can be (to use one phrase) " cross-contributed" - Robin FAQs 16. What is the relationship between a TC's Open Repositories and     its formal specifications? 17. Can a contributor to a TC's Open Repository push a contribution     to the TC for use in its formal specifications? 18. Can a TC member pull material from one of its TC     Open Repositories into the TC's formal specifications? 19. If a TC has material such as code snippets in its formal     specification, may it also place that material in an associated     related TC Open Repository? https://www.oasis-open.org/ resources/open-repositories/ faq#relationToSpecifications https://www.oasis-open.org/ resources/open-repositories/ faq#pushingContentToTC https://www.oasis-open.org/ resources/open-repositories/ faq#pullingContentFromRepo https://www.oasis-open.org/ resources/open-repositories/ faq#shareableCodeComponents On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 2:01 PM, < duncan@sfractal.com > wrote: > "we do *not* have unanimous consent for opening ‘a’ repo" Is it safe to say that there is no objection in principle to the concepts of having repo, but the issue is which type (github//oasis-open vs github//oasis-tcs)? I've been wrestling with a similar issue in OpenC2 with a similar "can't win" (ie either non-OASIS can't play; or certain OASIS-members can't play). If we have to break the tie, I would tend towards favoring OASIS members (ie the github//oasis-tcs solution). Would it be possible to have both? I think there would be two ways to do this. Method A: github//oasis-tcs is the 'main' repo and the 'definitive' repo github//oasis-open is 'supplemental' In this scenario, members would contribute to github//oasis-tcs and non-members would contribute to github//oasis-open. Note both are world-readable (so both are open wrt readable). Any member so inclined could copy github//oasis-open info to their own fork and then contribute it to github//oasis-tcs. I recognize some legal teams might not approve their employees doing such but I'm assuming since they have the same opensource licenses and the same contributor agreements that someone might be able to do it (only takes one). If no one does it then you have to look in two places which might not be that big a deal if directory structures and cross links are put in between the two (ie if you go into the 'non-OASIS-member' subdir it just is a hotlink to the other repo (and vice versa). Method B: same methodology but reverse which one is 'main/definitive'. I'd favor A over B and I'd really prefer there was just one - but not obvious to me how "one" can be made to work for everyone. Duncan Sparrell sFractal Consulting LLC iPhone, iTypo, iApologize