>> The basic notion is that you don't actually provide "a license" for >> the standard, you provide a group of the OWFa statements from >> "the contributers" (though, in my context, I have *no* idea how >> we'd figure out how that was). > > You may not own the IP you seek to license. If you don't know who are the > owners of the IP in your standards, then how can you license it? Or rather, > any license you do give the world will be misleading and invalid. Nobody > here can help you do that.
Well, I understand the principle of that. But how can any useful standard not be littered with IP from all over the place? I suspect that these OWFa standards just push the deceit out to the contributers > OWF assumes that you have exercised diligence and maintained records of all > contributors. We recommend that you use the CLA to receive a license to > their contributions. Then final signatures on the OWFa require no further > negotiation. > > I've talked with others in the past about HL7. I don't believe your group is > yet committed to full open source licensing for HL7 specifications, so your > question may be premature anyway. yes, sigh, that's unfortunately a true statement. Though the deceit part applies whether or not it's open, really. I don't know how to resolve this. But OMG, for instance, do you rate them as an open source license? Grahame _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@opensource.org http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
