William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > Carl Trieloff wrote: >> William, >> >> I have made some edits to the wiki on the Mechanisms for feedback[...] > > Although the objectionable language still appears on the spec parties' web > sites[...]
Whoa - my bad; I got this wrong and the web sites beat us both... > I have one last suggestion on your choice of words... > >>From the proposal, "On such acceptance the employer is required to sign an > agreement to make sure that employer also grants the ongoing and consistent > licenses to the work as posted in specifications." > > could be more simply put "On such acceptance, the employer must also sign > the [RLA? ] agreement [or is this Specifications Party Contract?] to ensure > that all necessary licenses are clearly granted." - which makes perfect sense. "In the same spirit of an Apache-style process, if an individual has shown understanding of the project and substantive contribution to the specification, based on technical merit and understanding of the goals of the work an invitation may be extended to have that member join the specification Working Group. On such acceptance the Party is required to sign an agreement that makes sure they also grant ongoing and consistent licenses to the work." Done. The language on the sites is perfect. The Party in this case is the individual, and anyone else who lays claim to the IP they produce, so I don't see any reason not to use the web site language off Envoy & IONA (the two I just reread.) Still looking for just the answer to my very last question about the Spec participation contract, public or private status. Bill --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
