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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
