[KI-LC] Fwd: [Staff] UMA F2F before IIW
email at brettmcdowell.com
Thu Oct 29 07:40:33 EDT 2009
There was no attachment.
As for whether we need to concern ourselves about this... yes, we do.
But no, we don't need to be crazy about it. I tried to capture the
balance in my revision sent out a few minutes ago. Most groups who
are producing output that would require a license from contributors in
order to be adopted down-the-road simply don't let you participate at
all unless you've joined the organization. I wonder what sort of
"output" was being developed in your TERENA, GENI, etc. meetings that
led them to omit seeking permission to use your contributions.
Brett McDowell | http://info.brettmcdowell.com | http://KantaraInitiative.org
On Oct 29, 2009, at 7:36 AM, Robin Wilton wrote:
> Hi folks -
> I've corrected some typos in the draft (attached).
> I have two comments:
> 1 - I think the document needs to specify what it is that
> participants are being expected to join (Kantara, individual WG,
> etc). I say this because there was a little confusion initially in
> Las Vegas as to why we were asking participants to sign multiple
> documents. Once we explained that it was per WG, to accommodate the
> possibility that different WGs might have different IPR policies,
> they were mostly happy with it.
> 2 - Just to note in passing that, for instance, when I have attended
> meetings of bodies such as TERENA, GENI etc., I haven't had to sign
> anything, despite the possibility of IP being contributed to the
> discussion intentionally or otherwise. Is there perhaps a risk that
> we're devoting disproportionate time and effort to this?
> Robin Wilton
> Director - Future Identity Ltd
> +44 (0)705 005 2931
> mail at futureidentity.eu
More information about the LC