MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
oasis-member-discuss message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Is "Defensive RF" the answer to the OASIS IPR impasse?
Following on from the past weeks discussion and notes around the
experience of the use of SAML. It seems clear that large user
corporations and governments have an aversion to any standard that has
licensing requirement from individual companies that they must
action.
This clearly limits any OASIS standard adoption where there are
specific licensing needed.
Whereas the current OASIS IPR choices really do not make this
clear - in fact the opposite - the door appears to be open where
future impediments may be added at an unknown time by participating
contributors.
We heard again the argument that - "why work on a standard if then it
has to be scrapped because of some IPR that later arises?"
Conversely one could say that in the case of things like SAML
where any non-RF licensing will effectively scrap the use anyway -
then we have to be pragmatic and say we need an IPR policy where
adopters know that - contributors to the OASIS work do so
solely on the basis of RF only and that is enshrined in the
charter and modus operandi of the TC that their participation is on
that basis alone.
Hence - the TC would only accept work on the basis of RF, and beyond
that if IPR issues arise those will either require an RF
agreement, or the TC work will be changed to avoid that IPR and not
include it.
Having that level of clear statement in the IPR-mode options is what
we appear to be missing today - as evidenced by the experience with
SAML.
Cordially, DW
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]