How do you wanna finish a spec without this issue fixed? I wanna finish it now...We can leave the conall. But I have the feeling that not everything is settled/cleared out yet. So we need to discuss it and if we do that by mail it's gonna take ages... -Thijs -----Original Message----- From: Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> To: Thijs Metsch <Thijs.Metsch@Sun.COM> Cc: Steven Newhouse <s.newhouse@omii.ac.uk>, occi-wg <occi-wg@ogf.org>, Richard Hughes-Jones <Richard.Hughes-Jones@dante.org.uk> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] OCCI Editor Getting Started Guide (docs/README.txt) Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 17:38:31 +0200 Thijs, Haven't we got a spec to finish? I wasn't even able to sit through the last weekly call because it veered so far off course (granted I had a filthy headache at the time courtesy a nasty flu), but I see little value in wasting what little volunteer time we have when it seems pretty clear we're at an impasse on the copyright issue. Sam On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Thijs Metsch <Thijs.Metsch@sun.com> wrote: Dear group, To finally close this issue I wanna setup a concall to discuss this matter. Please fill in the doodle so we can find the best time for this discussion... http://doodle.com/irv86rayupyzfwe4 Cheers, -Thijs -----Original Message----- From: Andre Merzky <andre@merzky.net> Reply-to: Andre Merzky <andre@merzky.net> To: Pieter Hintjens <ph@imatix.com> Cc: Richard Hughes-Jones <Richard.Hughes-Jones@dante.org.uk>, Steven Newhouse <s.newhouse@omii.ac.uk>, occi-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [occi-wg] OCCI Editor Getting Started Guide (docs/README.txt) Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 23:28:37 +0100 Hi Pieter, its great to see some additional response, besides Sam :-) Quoting [Pieter Hintjens] (Mar 25 2010): > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 12:07 AM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> > wrote: > > > Mine too - if you can't reuse/remix the work then it's not free > > enough. > > The ability to remix a standard seems an essential freedom: if a > standard becomes too complex or encumbered by patents then this is > the only way to save parts of it. *sigh* my mail thread to that topic is counting well over 50 mails by now, and I still did not understand why people think that to be the case. Would you or Sam please so kind and provide either an explicit example for a spec which has successfully been forked, or an explicit use case where that would be neccessary, and where the same cannot be achieved by referencing or profiling the old (complex or encumbered) standard? What I (naively) think is that I can always create a specification like "This specification defines an API API-B, which consists of the API defined in [orig], names API-A, with the call A removed, and the calls B added. The call C changes its semantics to perform a nil operation. Call D takes an additional parameter 'int size' which defaults to 1." Voila, new API specified. Same for interfaces, protocols, etc etc. Why do you need to fork a spec? I don't get it, sorry... Yes, the new API is called differently. This is a *good* thing - I don't want to see two specs for API-A which define different syntax and semantics! Are there use cases where one wants to break interoperability on purpose? *scratch* I can't think of any. At least the version number of the spec needs to change, IMHO. > That's why for Digistan we defined[1] the ability to fork a > standard under a share-alike license as a necessary aspect. We > chose the GPLv3 mainly because it includes some safeguards against > software patents, which CC does not. I understand the concerns about patents. But I think we agreed that this is out of scope for this specific discussion. I am not sure if you are on the OCCI mailing list, so you may have not seen that part of our exchange. We basically agreed I think, and this is also what you say I guess, that neither the OGF IPR nor CC-SA can provide any protection against 3rd party patent claims on technology required to implement a specification. The best one can do is to obtain explicit patent waivers from those parties known to have claims on the relevant technology. GPLv3 helps to some extent of course, but cannot provide protection against 3rd party patent claims either. Thanks, Andre. > -Pieter > > > [1] http://www.digistan.org/text:rationale#toc6 -- Thijs Metsch Tel: +49 (0)941 3075-122 (x60122) http://blogs.sun.com/intheclouds http://www.twitter.com/befreax Software Engineer Cloud, Grid and Virtualization Sun Microsystems GmbH Dr.-Leo-Ritter-Str. 7 mailto:thijs.metsch@sun.com D-93049 Regensburg http://www.sun.com _______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg _______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg -- Thijs Metsch Tel: +49 (0)941 3075-122 (x60122) http://blogs.sun.com/intheclouds http://www.twitter.com/befreax Software Engineer Cloud, Grid and Virtualization Sun Microsystems GmbH Dr.-Leo-Ritter-Str. 7 mailto:thijs.metsch@sun.com D-93049 Regensburg http://www.sun.com