[occi-wg] OCCI Editor Getting Started Guide (docs/README.txt)
samj at samj.net
Tue Mar 30 18:12:02 CDT 2010
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Constantinos (Costas) Kotsokalis <
constantinos.kotsokalis at udo.edu> wrote:
> Speaking about the outset:
> I would assume that the OGF copyright rules were clear and known from the
> very beginning, when people first got involved, while personal opinions
> naturally were not. Perhaps it is reasonable to expect that people would
> respect and accept the rules commonly understood when the effort started.
> A crazy thought?
I've been dealing with this issue behind the scenes the whole time and am
only discussing it in public now because my attempts to convince the OGF to
loosen up on arcane copyright restrictions have thus far failed. My only
concern is the success of the specification and having invested countless
hours of my time I'll break as many eggs as necessary to ensure that - I've
even volunteered to assist with the registration of the requisite trademarks
to prevent the confusion people are concerned about.
We've now exchanged well over 50 emails in this thread alone on a subject
that is not getting us any closer to having the long overdue specification
finished - that worries me greatly in terms of this group's ability to focus
and deliver. It's also disconcerting that, after having (necessarily) given
the group some breathing space over the last few months, there has not been a
my absence. While I appreciate that important work is being done, our number
one priority remains outstanding.
On 29 Mar 2010, at 20:58, Sam Johnston wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Christopher Smith <csmith at platform.com>wrote:
>> I would imagine that achieving consensus on various issues related to
>> the OCCI spec *should* be one of the important things for the OCCI-WG to
>> be doing right now, as the version 1.0 specification is now out of public
>> comment and is in the final stages before becoming a GFD. This most
>> definitely includes the issue of copyright/license of the final GFD, and
>> just because Sam Johnston decides he’s done with the conversation does not
>> indicate consensus in the group and/or the organization.
> The spec out for public comment is *far from complete* so before we do *
> anything* else it needs to be finished - at least we'll then have
> something (long overdue) to talk about and market. My time is extremely and
> increasingly limited and I don't plan to waste any more of it discussing
> something that I was quite clear about from the outset - unjustifiably
> restrictive licensing *will* unnecessarily stifle adoption. Ironically
> trying to avoid forking by seeking consensus where there is apparently none
> to be had virtually guarantees a fork from the outset.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the occi-wg