You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ws.apache.org by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com> on 2003/11/12 03:55:44 UTC
VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Dims asked me to follow-up on the discussion we had ref starting
a new umbrella subproject to host other WS-* implementations. I'd
like to call a vote for creating the WS-Fx project per
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?WebServicesProjectPages/Charter
ForWSFx
as well as for the Sandesha project per
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ReliableMessagingProposal
Dims wants to hold off on the WS-Security stuff until he has more
discussion with RSA Security regarding IP/license issues.
Here's my vote: +1 for both proposals.
Sanjiva.
Re: PMC
Posted by James M Snell <ja...@us.ibm.com>.
Works for me :-). Thanks Sam
- James M Snell
jasnell@us.ibm.com
http://www.ibm.com
(877) 511-5082 / Office
930-1979 / Tie Line
Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>
11/12/2003 04:34 PM
Please respond to
general@ws.apache.org
To
general@ws.apache.org
cc
Subject
Re: PMC
James M Snell wrote:
> This shouldn't come as much of a surprise, but I wanted to officially
> delist myself as a member of the Web Services PMC. I have not been able
> to devote any time to the PMC or any of the discussions and do not
forsee
> any change in the near or distant future.
The way other PMCs have handled similar situations is to list the PMC
member as being emeritus - a status that can revert back to full PMC
membership at any time upon request.
- Sam Ruby
Re: PMC
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
James M Snell wrote:
> This shouldn't come as much of a surprise, but I wanted to officially
> delist myself as a member of the Web Services PMC. I have not been able
> to devote any time to the PMC or any of the discussions and do not forsee
> any change in the near or distant future.
The way other PMCs have handled similar situations is to list the PMC
member as being emeritus - a status that can revert back to full PMC
membership at any time upon request.
- Sam Ruby
PMC
Posted by James M Snell <ja...@us.ibm.com>.
This shouldn't come as much of a surprise, but I wanted to officially
delist myself as a member of the Web Services PMC. I have not been able
to devote any time to the PMC or any of the discussions and do not forsee
any change in the near or distant future.
- James M Snell
jasnell@us.ibm.com
http://www.ibm.com
(877) 511-5082 / Office
930-1979 / Tie Line
Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Posted by robert burrell donkin <rd...@apache.org>.
(just my tuppenuth but) probably wouldn't hurt to check with licensing
at apache.
- robert
On 12 Nov 2003, at 13:20, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> There was an Interop for WS-RM
> (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3901) and AFAIK no one was asked
> to get a license for doing an implementation. So it should be ok.
>
> Thanks,
> dims
>
> --- Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>> "Aleksander Slominski" <as...@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>>
>>> however how are IP issues resolved for WS-ReliableMessaging from
>>> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-rm/
>>>
>>> it is not clear to me if WS-RM can be implemented as open source?
>>
>> Hmm. Good question.
>>
>> Glen, when Sonic implemented WS-RM did you need a license from IBM
>> etc.? I can certainly get whatever is needed I believe; just need
>> to know what we need.
>>
>> Dims, does Apache need anything specific to make it "safe"?
>>
>> Sanjiva.
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: pmc-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: pmc-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>
>
> =====
> Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
>
Re: WS-RM open source impl and NDA [Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals]
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
AFAIK there was no NDA - there was a (standard IBM/MSFT) feedback
agreement which grants certain prividges to the authors w.r.t.
feedback given by others.
I believe the results were / will be published.
IBM/MSFT have committed to publishing these RF, but you are correct
that that's not granted yet. I personally don't think we need to
push on this, but if necessary I'm certain I can get the appropriate
RF license issued. I think we're going overboard about it but then
I'm no lawyer.
I'm still curious to see Glen's answer as an implementor of WS-RM.
(Or anyone else who has - Dims, did u guys do one too?)
Sanjiva.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aleksander Slominski" <as...@cs.indiana.edu>
To: <ge...@ws.apache.org>
Cc: <pm...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 9:28 PM
Subject: WS-RM open source impl and NDA [Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha
proposals]
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> >There was an Interop for WS-RM (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3901)
and AFAIK no one was asked
> >to get a license for doing an implementation. So it should be ok.
> >
> >
> >
> hi,
>
> actually they did this under some kind of NDA (did you nitice there is
> no resultsfrom Workshop published ...). so you have to sign this
> agreemenet if you wanted to join them and thr same NDA is required to
> join discussion list - i am attaching it (it is Word file) and here is
> its content.
>
> maybe WS-RM spec author(s) could comment on that - i am really fuzzy if
> it ok for us to require everybody to sign it who works (or look) on
> WS-RM? it isseems that they *intend* to grant a Royalty-Free but that
> has not yet happened AFAIK (see in text below)?
>
> thanks,
>
> alek
>
> *WS-ReliableMessaging Interop Workshop Agreement
> Sept 2003*
>
>
>
> BEA, IBM, Microsoft, and TIBCO ("Authors") of the WS-ReliableMessaging
> (March 13, 2003) specification (the "Specification") are hosting a 3-day
> workshop on Oct 14-16, 2003 ("Interop Workshop") to (i) discuss the
> Specification, including sharing background information on its design,
> (ii) solicit feedback on the Specification, including general thoughts
> about the problem spaces addressed by the Specification and the
> practicality of implementing the Specification, and (iii) provide the
> opportunity for interoperability testing by the attendees, including
> you or your company ("you," and "your Company" if you are participating
> on behalf of your company, are collectively referred to herein as
> "Participant").
>
>
> Participant is expected to respect the privacy of others since, for
> example, other participants may be working with pre-release code.
> Results of each testing session in the Interop Workshop are not intended
> to be publicly posted. By participating in the Interop Workshop,
> Participant agrees not to disclose, comment on or otherwise
> characterize, in any manner, the results of the interoperability testing
> or of the operation of any other participant's products or applications
> tested at the Interop Workshop without such other participant's prior
> written consent.
>
>
>
> Consistent with the goals of the Interop Workshop, the Authors may
> publicize general results of the Interop Workshop testing through press
> release and post-event briefings of selected industry analysts and
> press. This will likely include general event information, overview of
> the list of participants, and the collective results of the testing.
> Participant is free to issue individual press releases that discuss its
> general involvement in the Interop Workshop.
>
>
>
> The Authors of the Specification and authors of the related
> specification ("Authors of Related Spec") listed below ("Related Spec")
> intend to submit revised versions of the Specification and Related Spec
> to a standards body, in which case they intend to grant a Royalty-Free
> (zero royalties with other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms)
> license to their necessary patent claims. Participant will be invited
> to provide comments and feedback on the Specification and/or Related
> Specs, but both sets of Authors need assurance that any such comments
> and feedback provided by Participant, either during or subsequent to the
> Interop Workshop, ("Comments") are provided in a manner that is
> consistent with that goal.
>
>
>
> Participant is not required to provide any Comments on this
> Specification or any Related Spec, but any Comments that Participant
> does provide may be incorporated into this Specification or Related
> Spec. By signing below, Participant grants to the Authors of the
> Specification and the Authors of Related Spec a non-exclusive,
> non-transferable, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free
> copyright license to copy, publish, license, modify, sublicense or
> otherwise distribute and exploit Comments you provide. Likewise, if
> incorporation of your Comments into a version of this Specification or
> any Related Spec would cause an implementation of any such Specification
> or Related Spec (as modified) to necessarily infringe a patent or patent
> application that Participant owns or controls, Participant commits to
> grant to all implementers of such Specification or Related Spec a
> Royalty-Free license under such patent or patent application to make,
> have made, use, sell, offer for sale, and import products or services
> that implement such Specification or Related Spec. Participant warrants
> that (a) to the best of Participant's knowledge Participant has the
> right to provide these Comments, and if you are providing Comments on
> behalf of a company, you have the rights to provide Comments on behalf
> of your Company; (b) the Comments are not confidential to Participant or
> to another party; and (c) to the best of your knowledge use of the
> Comments would not cause an implementation of the Specification or
> Related Spec (as modified) to necessarily infringe any third-party
> patent or patent application known to you. You also acknowledge that
> the Authors or Authors of Related Spec are not required to incorporate
> your Comments into any version of the Specification or Related Spec.
>
>
>
> *_ RELATED SPEC_*
>
> *_ _*
>
> *_WS-Addressing Authors: BEA, IBM, Microsoft_*
>
> *_ _*
>
> *_ _*
>
> *_ _*
>
> ___________________________
>
> Name
>
> ___________________________
>
> Title
>
> ___________________________
>
> Company
>
> ___________________________ ___________________________
>
> Signature Date
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> alek
>
> >Thanks,
> >dims
> >
> >--- Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Aleksander Slominski" <as...@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>however how are IP issues resolved for WS-ReliableMessaging from
> >>>http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-rm/
> >>>
> >>>it is not clear to me if WS-RM can be implemented as open source?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Hmm. Good question.
> >>
> >>Glen, when Sonic implemented WS-RM did you need a license from IBM
> >>etc.? I can certainly get whatever is needed I believe; just need
> >>to know what we need.
> >>
> >>Dims, does Apache need anything specific to make it "safe"?
> >>
> >>Sanjiva.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: pmc-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>For additional commands, e-mail: pmc-help@ws.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >=====
> >Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay
>
>
Re: WS-RM open source impl and NDA [Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha
proposals]
Posted by Glen Daniels <gd...@sonicsoftware.com>.
Indeed, we signed the agreement but didn't get any other kind of license. I
really doubt there would be any problem putting this up, but if there was
(i.e. if IBM or Microsoft asked us to take it down due to IP issues) the
social/political backlash would be so huge that it would almost be worth it
just for the show. :)
--Glen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Davanum Srinivas" <di...@yahoo.com>
To: <ge...@ws.apache.org>
Cc: <pm...@ws.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: WS-RM open source impl and NDA [Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha
proposals]
> The NDA is for joining the Interop. The RF stuff is also aimed towards
participants to this
> Interop meeting ONLY.
>
> -- dims
>
> --- Aleksander Slominski <as...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> > Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> >
> > >There was an Interop for WS-RM (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3901)
and AFAIK no one was
> > asked
> > >to get a license for doing an implementation. So it should be ok.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > hi,
> >
> > actually they did this under some kind of NDA (did you nitice there is
> > no resultsfrom Workshop published ...). so you have to sign this
> > agreemenet if you wanted to join them and thr same NDA is required to
> > join discussion list - i am attaching it (it is Word file) and here is
> > its content.
> >
> > maybe WS-RM spec author(s) could comment on that - i am really fuzzy if
> > it ok for us to require everybody to sign it who works (or look) on
> > WS-RM? it isseems that they *intend* to grant a Royalty-Free but that
> > has not yet happened AFAIK (see in text below)?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > alek
> >
> > *WS-ReliableMessaging Interop Workshop Agreement
> > Sept 2003*
> >
> >
> >
> > BEA, IBM, Microsoft, and TIBCO ("Authors") of the WS-ReliableMessaging
> > (March 13, 2003) specification (the "Specification") are hosting a 3-day
> > workshop on Oct 14-16, 2003 ("Interop Workshop") to (i) discuss the
> > Specification, including sharing background information on its design,
> > (ii) solicit feedback on the Specification, including general thoughts
> > about the problem spaces addressed by the Specification and the
> > practicality of implementing the Specification, and (iii) provide the
> > opportunity for interoperability testing by the attendees, including
> > you or your company ("you," and "your Company" if you are participating
> > on behalf of your company, are collectively referred to herein as
> > "Participant").
> >
> >
> > Participant is expected to respect the privacy of others since, for
> > example, other participants may be working with pre-release code.
> > Results of each testing session in the Interop Workshop are not intended
> > to be publicly posted. By participating in the Interop Workshop,
> > Participant agrees not to disclose, comment on or otherwise
> > characterize, in any manner, the results of the interoperability testing
> > or of the operation of any other participant's products or applications
> > tested at the Interop Workshop without such other participant's prior
> > written consent.
> >
> >
> >
> > Consistent with the goals of the Interop Workshop, the Authors may
> > publicize general results of the Interop Workshop testing through press
> > release and post-event briefings of selected industry analysts and
> > press. This will likely include general event information, overview of
> > the list of participants, and the collective results of the testing.
> > Participant is free to issue individual press releases that discuss its
> > general involvement in the Interop Workshop.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Authors of the Specification and authors of the related
> > specification ("Authors of Related Spec") listed below ("Related Spec")
> > intend to submit revised versions of the Specification and Related Spec
> > to a standards body, in which case they intend to grant a Royalty-Free
> > (zero royalties with other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms)
> > license to their necessary patent claims. Participant will be invited
> > to provide comments and feedback on the Specification and/or Related
> > Specs, but both sets of Authors need assurance that any such comments
> > and feedback provided by Participant, either during or subsequent to the
> > Interop Workshop, ("Comments") are provided in a manner that is
> > consistent with that goal.
> >
> >
> >
> > Participant is not required to provide any Comments on this
> > Specification or any Related Spec, but any Comments that Participant
> > does provide may be incorporated into this Specification or Related
> > Spec. By signing below, Participant grants to the Authors of the
> > Specification and the Authors of Related Spec a non-exclusive,
> > non-transferable, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free
> > copyright license to copy, publish, license, modify, sublicense or
> > otherwise distribute and exploit Comments you provide. Likewise, if
> > incorporation of your Comments into a version of this Specification or
> > any Related Spec would cause an implementation of any such Specification
> > or Related Spec (as modified) to necessarily infringe a patent or patent
> > application that Participant owns or controls, Participant commits to
> > grant to all implementers of such Specification or Related Spec a
> > Royalty-Free license under such patent or patent application to make,
> > have made, use, sell, offer for sale, and import products or services
> > that implement such Specification or Related Spec. Participant warrants
> > that (a) to the best of Participant's knowledge Participant has the
> > right to provide these Comments, and if you are providing Comments on
> > behalf of a company, you have the rights to provide Comments on behalf
> > of your Company; (b) the Comments are not confidential to Participant or
> > to another party; and (c) to the best of your knowledge use of the
> > Comments would not cause an implementation of the Specification or
> > Related Spec (as modified) to necessarily infringe any third-party
> > patent or patent application known to you. You also acknowledge that
> > the Authors or Authors of Related Spec are not required to incorporate
> > your Comments into any version of the Specification or Related Spec.
> >
> >
> >
> > *_ RELATED SPEC_*
> >
> > *_ _*
> >
> > *_WS-Addressing Authors: BEA, IBM, Microsoft_*
> >
> > *_ _*
> >
> > *_ _*
> >
> > *_ _*
> >
> > ___________________________
> >
> > Name
> >
> > ___________________________
> >
> > Title
> >
> > ___________________________
> >
> > Company
> >
> > ___________________________ ___________________________
> >
> > Signature Date
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > alek
> >
> > >Thanks,
> > >dims
> > >
> > >--- Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>"Aleksander Slominski" <as...@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>however how are IP issues resolved for WS-ReliableMessaging from
> > >>>http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-rm/
> > >>>
> > >>>it is not clear to me if WS-RM can be implemented as open source?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>Hmm. Good question.
> > >>
> > >>Glen, when Sonic implemented WS-RM did you need a license from IBM
> > >>etc.? I can certainly get whatever is needed I believe; just need
> > >>to know what we need.
> > >>
> > >>Dims, does Apache need anything specific to make it "safe"?
> > >>
> > >>Sanjiva.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: pmc-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> > >>For additional commands, e-mail: pmc-help@ws.apache.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >=====
> > >Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay
> >
> >
>
> > ATTACHMENT part 2 application/msword
name=WS-specworkshopsRMworkshopagreement92303.doc
>
>
>
> =====
> Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: pmc-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: pmc-help@ws.apache.org
>
>
Re: WS-RM open source impl and NDA [Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals]
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
The NDA is for joining the Interop. The RF stuff is also aimed towards participants to this
Interop meeting ONLY.
-- dims
--- Aleksander Slominski <as...@cs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>
> >There was an Interop for WS-RM (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3901) and AFAIK no one was
> asked
> >to get a license for doing an implementation. So it should be ok.
> >
> >
> >
> hi,
>
> actually they did this under some kind of NDA (did you nitice there is
> no resultsfrom Workshop published ...). so you have to sign this
> agreemenet if you wanted to join them and thr same NDA is required to
> join discussion list - i am attaching it (it is Word file) and here is
> its content.
>
> maybe WS-RM spec author(s) could comment on that - i am really fuzzy if
> it ok for us to require everybody to sign it who works (or look) on
> WS-RM? it isseems that they *intend* to grant a Royalty-Free but that
> has not yet happened AFAIK (see in text below)?
>
> thanks,
>
> alek
>
> *WS-ReliableMessaging Interop Workshop Agreement
> Sept 2003*
>
>
>
> BEA, IBM, Microsoft, and TIBCO ("Authors") of the WS-ReliableMessaging
> (March 13, 2003) specification (the "Specification") are hosting a 3-day
> workshop on Oct 14-16, 2003 ("Interop Workshop") to (i) discuss the
> Specification, including sharing background information on its design,
> (ii) solicit feedback on the Specification, including general thoughts
> about the problem spaces addressed by the Specification and the
> practicality of implementing the Specification, and (iii) provide the
> opportunity for interoperability testing by the attendees, including
> you or your company ("you," and "your Company" if you are participating
> on behalf of your company, are collectively referred to herein as
> "Participant").
>
>
> Participant is expected to respect the privacy of others since, for
> example, other participants may be working with pre-release code.
> Results of each testing session in the Interop Workshop are not intended
> to be publicly posted. By participating in the Interop Workshop,
> Participant agrees not to disclose, comment on or otherwise
> characterize, in any manner, the results of the interoperability testing
> or of the operation of any other participant's products or applications
> tested at the Interop Workshop without such other participant's prior
> written consent.
>
>
>
> Consistent with the goals of the Interop Workshop, the Authors may
> publicize general results of the Interop Workshop testing through press
> release and post-event briefings of selected industry analysts and
> press. This will likely include general event information, overview of
> the list of participants, and the collective results of the testing.
> Participant is free to issue individual press releases that discuss its
> general involvement in the Interop Workshop.
>
>
>
> The Authors of the Specification and authors of the related
> specification ("Authors of Related Spec") listed below ("Related Spec")
> intend to submit revised versions of the Specification and Related Spec
> to a standards body, in which case they intend to grant a Royalty-Free
> (zero royalties with other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms)
> license to their necessary patent claims. Participant will be invited
> to provide comments and feedback on the Specification and/or Related
> Specs, but both sets of Authors need assurance that any such comments
> and feedback provided by Participant, either during or subsequent to the
> Interop Workshop, ("Comments") are provided in a manner that is
> consistent with that goal.
>
>
>
> Participant is not required to provide any Comments on this
> Specification or any Related Spec, but any Comments that Participant
> does provide may be incorporated into this Specification or Related
> Spec. By signing below, Participant grants to the Authors of the
> Specification and the Authors of Related Spec a non-exclusive,
> non-transferable, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free
> copyright license to copy, publish, license, modify, sublicense or
> otherwise distribute and exploit Comments you provide. Likewise, if
> incorporation of your Comments into a version of this Specification or
> any Related Spec would cause an implementation of any such Specification
> or Related Spec (as modified) to necessarily infringe a patent or patent
> application that Participant owns or controls, Participant commits to
> grant to all implementers of such Specification or Related Spec a
> Royalty-Free license under such patent or patent application to make,
> have made, use, sell, offer for sale, and import products or services
> that implement such Specification or Related Spec. Participant warrants
> that (a) to the best of Participant's knowledge Participant has the
> right to provide these Comments, and if you are providing Comments on
> behalf of a company, you have the rights to provide Comments on behalf
> of your Company; (b) the Comments are not confidential to Participant or
> to another party; and (c) to the best of your knowledge use of the
> Comments would not cause an implementation of the Specification or
> Related Spec (as modified) to necessarily infringe any third-party
> patent or patent application known to you. You also acknowledge that
> the Authors or Authors of Related Spec are not required to incorporate
> your Comments into any version of the Specification or Related Spec.
>
>
>
> *_ RELATED SPEC_*
>
> *_ _*
>
> *_WS-Addressing Authors: BEA, IBM, Microsoft_*
>
> *_ _*
>
> *_ _*
>
> *_ _*
>
> ___________________________
>
> Name
>
> ___________________________
>
> Title
>
> ___________________________
>
> Company
>
> ___________________________ ___________________________
>
> Signature Date
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> alek
>
> >Thanks,
> >dims
> >
> >--- Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Aleksander Slominski" <as...@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>however how are IP issues resolved for WS-ReliableMessaging from
> >>>http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-rm/
> >>>
> >>>it is not clear to me if WS-RM can be implemented as open source?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Hmm. Good question.
> >>
> >>Glen, when Sonic implemented WS-RM did you need a license from IBM
> >>etc.? I can certainly get whatever is needed I believe; just need
> >>to know what we need.
> >>
> >>Dims, does Apache need anything specific to make it "safe"?
> >>
> >>Sanjiva.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: pmc-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> >>For additional commands, e-mail: pmc-help@ws.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >=====
> >Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay
>
>
> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/msword name=WS-specworkshopsRMworkshopagreement92303.doc
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
WS-RM open source impl and NDA [Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals]
Posted by Aleksander Slominski <as...@cs.indiana.edu>.
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
>There was an Interop for WS-RM (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3901) and AFAIK no one was asked
>to get a license for doing an implementation. So it should be ok.
>
>
>
hi,
actually they did this under some kind of NDA (did you nitice there is
no resultsfrom Workshop published ...). so you have to sign this
agreemenet if you wanted to join them and thr same NDA is required to
join discussion list - i am attaching it (it is Word file) and here is
its content.
maybe WS-RM spec author(s) could comment on that - i am really fuzzy if
it ok for us to require everybody to sign it who works (or look) on
WS-RM? it isseems that they *intend* to grant a Royalty-Free but that
has not yet happened AFAIK (see in text below)?
thanks,
alek
*WS-ReliableMessaging Interop Workshop Agreement
Sept 2003*
BEA, IBM, Microsoft, and TIBCO ("Authors") of the WS-ReliableMessaging
(March 13, 2003) specification (the "Specification") are hosting a 3-day
workshop on Oct 14-16, 2003 ("Interop Workshop") to (i) discuss the
Specification, including sharing background information on its design,
(ii) solicit feedback on the Specification, including general thoughts
about the problem spaces addressed by the Specification and the
practicality of implementing the Specification, and (iii) provide the
opportunity for interoperability testing by the attendees, including
you or your company ("you," and "your Company" if you are participating
on behalf of your company, are collectively referred to herein as
"Participant").
Participant is expected to respect the privacy of others since, for
example, other participants may be working with pre-release code.
Results of each testing session in the Interop Workshop are not intended
to be publicly posted. By participating in the Interop Workshop,
Participant agrees not to disclose, comment on or otherwise
characterize, in any manner, the results of the interoperability testing
or of the operation of any other participant's products or applications
tested at the Interop Workshop without such other participant's prior
written consent.
Consistent with the goals of the Interop Workshop, the Authors may
publicize general results of the Interop Workshop testing through press
release and post-event briefings of selected industry analysts and
press. This will likely include general event information, overview of
the list of participants, and the collective results of the testing.
Participant is free to issue individual press releases that discuss its
general involvement in the Interop Workshop.
The Authors of the Specification and authors of the related
specification ("Authors of Related Spec") listed below ("Related Spec")
intend to submit revised versions of the Specification and Related Spec
to a standards body, in which case they intend to grant a Royalty-Free
(zero royalties with other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms)
license to their necessary patent claims. Participant will be invited
to provide comments and feedback on the Specification and/or Related
Specs, but both sets of Authors need assurance that any such comments
and feedback provided by Participant, either during or subsequent to the
Interop Workshop, ("Comments") are provided in a manner that is
consistent with that goal.
Participant is not required to provide any Comments on this
Specification or any Related Spec, but any Comments that Participant
does provide may be incorporated into this Specification or Related
Spec. By signing below, Participant grants to the Authors of the
Specification and the Authors of Related Spec a non-exclusive,
non-transferable, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free
copyright license to copy, publish, license, modify, sublicense or
otherwise distribute and exploit Comments you provide. Likewise, if
incorporation of your Comments into a version of this Specification or
any Related Spec would cause an implementation of any such Specification
or Related Spec (as modified) to necessarily infringe a patent or patent
application that Participant owns or controls, Participant commits to
grant to all implementers of such Specification or Related Spec a
Royalty-Free license under such patent or patent application to make,
have made, use, sell, offer for sale, and import products or services
that implement such Specification or Related Spec. Participant warrants
that (a) to the best of Participant's knowledge Participant has the
right to provide these Comments, and if you are providing Comments on
behalf of a company, you have the rights to provide Comments on behalf
of your Company; (b) the Comments are not confidential to Participant or
to another party; and (c) to the best of your knowledge use of the
Comments would not cause an implementation of the Specification or
Related Spec (as modified) to necessarily infringe any third-party
patent or patent application known to you. You also acknowledge that
the Authors or Authors of Related Spec are not required to incorporate
your Comments into any version of the Specification or Related Spec.
*_ RELATED SPEC_*
*_ _*
*_WS-Addressing Authors: BEA, IBM, Microsoft_*
*_ _*
*_ _*
*_ _*
___________________________
Name
___________________________
Title
___________________________
Company
___________________________ ___________________________
Signature Date
alek
>Thanks,
>dims
>
>--- Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Aleksander Slominski" <as...@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>>
>>
>>>however how are IP issues resolved for WS-ReliableMessaging from
>>>http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-rm/
>>>
>>>it is not clear to me if WS-RM can be implemented as open source?
>>>
>>>
>>Hmm. Good question.
>>
>>Glen, when Sonic implemented WS-RM did you need a license from IBM
>>etc.? I can certainly get whatever is needed I believe; just need
>>to know what we need.
>>
>>Dims, does Apache need anything specific to make it "safe"?
>>
>>Sanjiva.
>>
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: pmc-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: pmc-help@ws.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>=====
>Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
>
>
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay
Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
There was an Interop for WS-RM (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3901) and AFAIK no one was asked
to get a license for doing an implementation. So it should be ok.
Thanks,
dims
--- Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> "Aleksander Slominski" <as...@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
> >
> > however how are IP issues resolved for WS-ReliableMessaging from
> > http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-rm/
> >
> > it is not clear to me if WS-RM can be implemented as open source?
>
> Hmm. Good question.
>
> Glen, when Sonic implemented WS-RM did you need a license from IBM
> etc.? I can certainly get whatever is needed I believe; just need
> to know what we need.
>
> Dims, does Apache need anything specific to make it "safe"?
>
> Sanjiva.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: pmc-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: pmc-help@ws.apache.org
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com>.
"Aleksander Slominski" <as...@cs.indiana.edu> writes:
>
> however how are IP issues resolved for WS-ReliableMessaging from
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-rm/
>
> it is not clear to me if WS-RM can be implemented as open source?
Hmm. Good question.
Glen, when Sonic implemented WS-RM did you need a license from IBM
etc.? I can certainly get whatever is needed I believe; just need
to know what we need.
Dims, does Apache need anything specific to make it "safe"?
Sanjiva.
Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Posted by Aleksander Slominski <as...@cs.indiana.edu>.
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
>Dims asked me to follow-up on the discussion we had ref starting
>a new umbrella subproject to host other WS-* implementations. I'd
>like to call a vote for creating the WS-Fx project per
>
>http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?WebServicesProjectPages/Charter
>ForWSFx
>
>as well as for the Sandesha project per
>
>http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ReliableMessagingProposal
>
>Dims wants to hold off on the WS-Security stuff until he has more
>discussion with RSA Security regarding IP/license issues.
>
>Here's my vote: +1 for both proposals.
>
>
+1 in principle.
however how are IP issues resolved for WS-ReliableMessaging from
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-rm/
it is not clear to me if WS-RM can be implemented as open source?
is it safe for Apache to host it considering following warning?
(...)
Copyright© EXCEPT FOR THE COPYRIGHT LICENSE GRANTED ABOVE, THE AUTHORS
DO NOT GRANT, EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY, A LICENSE TO ANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING PATENTS, THEY OWN OR CONTROL.
Copyright© THE WS-RELIABLEMESSAGING SPECIFICATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS,"
AND THE AUTHORS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, OR TITLE; THAT THE
CONTENTS OF THE WS-RELIABLEMESSAGINGSPECIFICATION ARE SUITABLE FOR ANY
PURPOSE; NOR THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH CONTENTS WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY THIRD PARTY PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS OR OTHER RIGHTS.
Copyright© THE AUTHORS WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING
TO ANY USE OR DISTRIBUTION OF THE WS-RELIABLEMESSAGING SPECIFICATION.
Copyright© The WS-ReliableMessaging Specification may change before
final release and you are cautioned against relying on the content of
this specification.
Copyright© The name and trademarks of the Authors may NOT be used in any
manner, including advertising or publicity pertaining to the
Specification or its contents without specific, written prior
permission. Title to copyright in the WS-ReliableMessaging Specification
will at all times remain with the Authors.
(...)
what did i miss?
thanks,
alek
--
The best way to predict the future is to invent it - Alan Kay
Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Posted by Glen Daniels <gd...@sonicsoftware.com>.
Hi Daniel!
> >
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?WebServicesProjectPages/CharterForWSFx
>
> Assuming that this proposal applies to web services in the generic sense,
how
> does this differ from the *-commons repositories used by other top level
> projects (the proposal mentions a ws-fx-sandbox)? If it doesn't, how
about
> naming it consistently? If it is specific to Axis or web services in the
> "marketing" sense, can we distinguish this in the project name, and can
you
> make this more prominent in the proposal?
There's a somewhat interesting taxonomy here. There is certainly a call for
a ws-commons, I think. I would imagine that in there there would be things
like JaxMe, perhaps a slicker version of tcpmon which is more SOAP aware,
etc... Then there is the "extensions" space. This is for stuff that "bolts
on" to Axis, like reliability/security/etc extensions implemented with
Handlers and ideally sharing an extensibility architecture as outlined in
the Wiki. While you certainly could put all these in "ws-commons" as well,
I would think having a well-delineated area for extensions like this might
be a good thing...
--Glen
Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Posted by Glen Daniels <gd...@sonicsoftware.com>.
Hi Daniel!
> >
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?WebServicesProjectPages/CharterForWSFx
>
> Assuming that this proposal applies to web services in the generic sense,
how
> does this differ from the *-commons repositories used by other top level
> projects (the proposal mentions a ws-fx-sandbox)? If it doesn't, how
about
> naming it consistently? If it is specific to Axis or web services in the
> "marketing" sense, can we distinguish this in the project name, and can
you
> make this more prominent in the proposal?
There's a somewhat interesting taxonomy here. There is certainly a call for
a ws-commons, I think. I would imagine that in there there would be things
like JaxMe, perhaps a slicker version of tcpmon which is more SOAP aware,
etc... Then there is the "extensions" space. This is for stuff that "bolts
on" to Axis, like reliability/security/etc extensions implemented with
Handlers and ideally sharing an extensibility architecture as outlined in
the Wiki. While you certainly could put all these in "ws-commons" as well,
I would think having a well-delineated area for extensions like this might
be a good thing...
--Glen
Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
Hi Daniel,
> I'm not especially comfortable with the level of diversity in the initial
> committer lists, and am currently -0 on both projects.
I assume that this is related to the recent discussion of the
composition of the Axis/C++ team. Would it help if I change my
email address to @watson.ibm.com? Then there will be committers
from Sonic, IBM, Virtusa and University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka.
Is that sufficiently diverse?
Glen/Dug, based on what happened at the RM interop meeting, do you
know of other companies who may be interested in seeing an RM impl
at Apache?
Sanjiva.
Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
Hi Daniel,
> I'm not especially comfortable with the level of diversity in the initial
> committer lists, and am currently -0 on both projects.
I assume that this is related to the recent discussion of the
composition of the Axis/C++ team. Would it help if I change my
email address to @watson.ibm.com? Then there will be committers
from Sonic, IBM, Virtusa and University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka.
Is that sufficiently diverse?
Glen/Dug, based on what happened at the RM interop meeting, do you
know of other companies who may be interested in seeing an RM impl
at Apache?
Sanjiva.
Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Posted by "Daniel L. Rall" <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Dims asked me to follow-up on the discussion we had ref starting
> a new umbrella subproject to host other WS-* implementations. I'd
> like to call a vote for creating the WS-Fx project per
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?WebServicesProjectPages/CharterForWSFx
Assuming that this proposal applies to web services in the generic sense, how
does this differ from the *-commons repositories used by other top level
projects (the proposal mentions a ws-fx-sandbox)? If it doesn't, how about
naming it consistently? If it is specific to Axis or web services in the
"marketing" sense, can we distinguish this in the project name, and can you
make this more prominent in the proposal?
...
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ReliableMessagingProposal
>
> Dims wants to hold off on the WS-Security stuff until he has more
> discussion with RSA Security regarding IP/license issues.
I'm not especially comfortable with the level of diversity in the initial
committer lists, and am currently -0 on both projects.
Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Posted by "Daniel L. Rall" <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
Sanjiva Weerawarana wrote:
> Dims asked me to follow-up on the discussion we had ref starting
> a new umbrella subproject to host other WS-* implementations. I'd
> like to call a vote for creating the WS-Fx project per
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?WebServicesProjectPages/CharterForWSFx
Assuming that this proposal applies to web services in the generic sense, how
does this differ from the *-commons repositories used by other top level
projects (the proposal mentions a ws-fx-sandbox)? If it doesn't, how about
naming it consistently? If it is specific to Axis or web services in the
"marketing" sense, can we distinguish this in the project name, and can you
make this more prominent in the proposal?
...
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ReliableMessagingProposal
>
> Dims wants to hold off on the WS-Security stuff until he has more
> discussion with RSA Security regarding IP/license issues.
I'm not especially comfortable with the level of diversity in the initial
committer lists, and am currently -0 on both projects.
Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
+1 from me for both.
-- dims
--- Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> Dims asked me to follow-up on the discussion we had ref starting
> a new umbrella subproject to host other WS-* implementations. I'd
> like to call a vote for creating the WS-Fx project per
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?WebServicesProjectPages/Charter
> ForWSFx
>
> as well as for the Sandesha project per
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ReliableMessagingProposal
>
> Dims wants to hold off on the WS-Security stuff until he has more
> discussion with RSA Security regarding IP/license issues.
>
> Here's my vote: +1 for both proposals.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: pmc-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: pmc-help@ws.apache.org
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/
Re: VOTE: WS-Fx and Sandesha proposals
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <di...@yahoo.com>.
+1 from me for both.
-- dims
--- Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
> Dims asked me to follow-up on the discussion we had ref starting
> a new umbrella subproject to host other WS-* implementations. I'd
> like to call a vote for creating the WS-Fx project per
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?WebServicesProjectPages/Charter
> ForWSFx
>
> as well as for the Sandesha project per
>
> http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?ReliableMessagingProposal
>
> Dims wants to hold off on the WS-Security stuff until he has more
> discussion with RSA Security regarding IP/license issues.
>
> Here's my vote: +1 for both proposals.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: pmc-unsubscribe@ws.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: pmc-help@ws.apache.org
>
=====
Davanum Srinivas - http://webservices.apache.org/~dims/