incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <cctriel...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Blaze
Date Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:20:09 GMT
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Carl,
>
> Please bear with me. As a mentor for Tuscany, i am struggling with
> same kind of issues with SCA. Namely access to the spec, access to
> influence the spec and moving the spec to an external
> organization....So let's see if we can derive any lessons learned from
> our experience.
>
> IANAL, Is there an assurance in the license that all *future* revs to
> the spec will have the same license?
yes
> If not how can an Apache project
> be sure that it can track the spec?
>
project goal is to implement published versions, but I see no reason why 
Apache
could not look at joining the working group.
> Let's say it goes to OASIS, then the spec is "donated" to OASIS and
> goes under the current IP regime for OASIS which has no guarantee that
> the future revs to the spec will be implementable in open source. Do
> you see it differently?
I see it differently, the Working Groups contracts address this
issue - state how the spec will be licensed. Under OASIS, AMQP license
should map to "RF on Limited Terms".
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 7/19/06, Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> This worries me - accepting an implementation whose specification does
>> not yet have a defined license or containing standards body. Maybe
>> we've done it before though.
>>
>> This is not true - AMQP has a well defined license and it is posted in
>> the spec, and you can implement
>> the specification freely - without strings.
>>
>> On the topic of  - at which standards body it will land at, why is that
>> a concern, as the license of
>> the specification is well defined no matter where it goes
>>
>> Regards
>> Carl.
>>
>>
>> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> > On 7/18/06, Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the comments - I will be brief and then we can have 
>> follow up
>> >> exchange as required. comments in-line.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Brian McCallister wrote:
>> >> > Comments in line:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Jul 17, 2006, at 12:10 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> == Interactions with the specifications ==
>> >> >> The specification is being developed by group of companies, 
>> under a
>> >> >> contract that requires the resulting work to be published to a
>> >> >> standards body.
>> >> >
>> >> > Which standards body? What licensing terms apply to the spec?
>> >>
>> >> The body has not been selected yet, this will be decided by the group
>> >> working on the Spec. It will be one of the common suspects. This
>> >> group is set up very similar to Tuscany / SCA setup with some key
>> >> differences which I will highlight a few in the other answers.
>> >
>> > This worries me - accepting an implementation whose specification does
>> > not yet have a defined license or containing standards body. Maybe
>> > we've done it before though.
>> >
>> > Afaik, and I know little, I thought there were bodies whose rules were
>> > such that we didn't want to work with them. Does that stop us wanting
>> > to do implementations?
>> >
>> > Hen
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org


Mime
View raw message