With AMQP we created two docs, one with an AMQP open license, and one that is BSD for things like codegen, which then passes DFSG. alexis On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Alexander Papaspyrou <alexander.papaspyrou@tu-dortmund.de> wrote:
Sam,
Am 24.02.2010 um 16:33 schrieb Sam Johnston:
It seems your "open" is my "closed" so I'd honestly rather discuss what font we use - reuse rights are far too important to give up in the name of maintaining control.
well, this seems to be the usual problem with the term of "open systems", which has its very own legacy of different understandings.
Not quoting the whole debate again in my fixed font-only message style, I'd still like to stress one aspect from my previous thoughts:
• Including (parts of) the specification in documentation • Including other documentation (Wikipedia, standards, etc.) in the specification and/or association explanatory documents • Incorporating (parts of) the specification in (eg Wikipedia) articles
Regarding this topic, we should probably contact Greg Newby and Joel Replogle and ask them for their opinion before using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
While personally I don't consider the issues you stated as too important, I must admit that either of us may or may not be right (including both or neither). That's also the reason why I proposed the former: I think that the correct process to cope with the points you rightfully raised and put to discussion would be to escalate them to the appropriate OGF roles and committees. This would, provided that we find the current policies not appropriate for the purpose they strive to achieve, allow the whole OGF community benefit from the IPR-related findings within OCCI and give the opportunity to circumvent the iceberg by making global steering corrections.
Best, Alexander
-- Alexander Papaspyrou alexander.papaspyrou@tu-dortmund.de
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg