> It seemed to me that OpenSAML had issues best addressed by the board > with some advice and consent by the members. The division of > responsibility should be clarified here. One board member did respond. > The proponent seemed to argue the point without addressing the issue, and > I think it was mostly dropped.
I'm not sure if the "proponent" you're referring to is the author (me), or the person who solicited us to submit the project to the new WS PMC. In any case, I certainly agree with your first statement about it being a board-level issue. I certainly disagree that I didn't address the issue. Your issue was that you didn't believe the RSA license (that may never get released, the way things are going ;-) would be royalty-free, which simply disregards the history of the discussion with RSA that you weren't part of. It will be, whether you believe it or not. Debating that is a waste of our time, since neither of us controls the terms. *My* issue is that it still remains a license that developers would have to get, and there's no guarantee that the license will be royalty free forever, though I rather think it will. I agree, that's a concern, and it may be that Apache simply can't accept such any such terms. That's fine too. I remain of the opinion that if the patent itself is the real issue, then you might as well vote now on that basis. If the terms of the license that they release sometime in the hopefully near future are the issue, then I think it's simply wise to defer the discussion until that time. In any case, I haven't dropped it. If you want to vote it down, then do so, and we'll get on with life. Last I heard, the Apache representative who approached me had sent a note off to RSA expressing concern over the issue, and was awaiting a response. Sorry to interrupt, please resume your flaming as necessary. -- Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
