On Sunday 17 July 2005 02:45, Roy T. Fielding wrote: > OSGi specifications are free to implement. > > > Like the RFC process the specifications are crafted by a closed > > group. However anyone can implement these specifications. > > I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
I think I would get it from the Specification itself, "Legal Terms and Conditions regarding the Specification"; <quote> The recipient acknowledges and agrees that the specification is provided "as is" and with no warranties whatsoever, whether express, implied or statutory, including but not limited to any warranty of merchantability, noninfringement, fitness of any particular purpose, or any warranty otherwise arising out of any proposal, specification or sample. The recipients use of the specification is subject to the recipients OSGi member agreement, in the event that the recipient is an OSGi member. </quote> Ok, so it is a disclaimer. What does it say? * "as is", you decide what can be done with it * * we warrant nothing. * BSD style. * If you are member, you have addtional obligations * ASF is not. So that part, I would say is not an issue here. The first paragraph says; <quote> Implementation of certain elements of the Open Services Gateway Initiative[sic!] (OSGi) Specification may be subject to third party intellectual property rights, including without limitation, patent rights ( such a third party may or may not be a member of OSGi). OSGi is not responsible and shall not be held responsible in any manner for identifying or failing to identify any or all such third party intellectual property rights. </quote> Another disclaimer. What does it say; * OSGi is not tracking patents, and that the Spec may infringe. * Is that much different from ASF?? Yes, OSGi doesn't claim here that the non-avoidable parts of the spec is free from Patents. ASF Contributors make that guarantee and it is transferable downstream. Is that much different from OASIS? IMHO, No, it is exactly the same thing, and Roy told us NOT to go searching for patent rights, or reasons for not doing something, as late as last Friday. So, where does that leave us. Richard Hall (others?) is/are member(s) of the OSGi Alliance and covered by the Member agreement, and may or may not be allowed to contribute to the ASF under the ICLA. For all non-members, the Member Agreement shall be ignored and contributions towards the implementation executed just like any other project. Richard Hall (others?) need to review his own position of whether or not he can sign off the ICLA and contribute Oscar into the ASF. Considering the OSS licensing of Oscar today, I assume that he has done so already, and clarified any subtleties with the OSGi Alliance before. Cheers Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
