legalxml-sc — archive

RE: [legalxml-sc] IP wording in LegalXML Court Filing proposal

From: System
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 03:49:00 -0000

MHonArc v2.5.2 -->

legalxml-sc message

Subject: RE: [legalxml-sc] IP wording in LegalXML Court Filing proposal

From: Daniel Greenwood <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 03:59:33 -0400

Dear Fellow SC,

I don't like the idea of changing our pre-agreed wording at all.
However, if there is a good reason to do so, then we should go along.
I am not at all convinced that "too broad" without more meat is a good
reason.  I think our pre-agreed language is way too narrow, frankly,
already.  But, if there is a reasonable perspective here, and it does
not substantively narrow our scope for open IP, then I suppose we
should just accept the requested change.

I'd like to send the following note to Karl and cc Patrick.  How does
it sit with you'all?

"I am reluctant to make changes that further narrow our pre-agreed
wording (especially in view of the recent flare up with IBM's ebXML IP
games at OASIS and the politics/agendas on this topic in the standards
arenas at large) but am generally inclined to be a flexible "team
player" if it does not compromise the core principle.

I am thinking about this.  Can you please describe what the problem is
(i.e.: under what circumstances could the current pre-agreed language
cause difficulty).  Also, which member of the Board is pushing back?"

Thanks,
 - Dan