incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl Trieloff <>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Blaze
Date Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:43:37 GMT
Paul Fremantle wrote:
> Carl
> I think some of the team have a good point on the IP and licensing
> issues. One issue that is very frustrating from an Apache perspective
> is if there are some committers involved in the spec process, and
> other committers not involved.
> This is frustrating for both halves: the committers who (by dint of
> which employer they work for) have access to information and knowledge
> about future unpublished spec changes have to be very careful: they
> might donate IP to Apache that is under NDA and they don't have the
> right to use in code.
The work in AMQP is not under NDA, however IPR rights are only granted
on each version of the spec as it is published. This is true for just 
about all of the
standards process, so the group can deal with issues if they want. So I 
don't see that it
is meaning-full to commit draft work into an OSS project, but it might 
make sense for
the team at large to see updates that could help out in the project 
knowing how things may

I see two options:
a.) The project requests of the Working Group to review drafts
b.) Apache looks at joining the Working Group.

Both should resolve this issue.

> The committers who are NOT part of the spec body have the opposite
> issue - they are "in the dark" which is also frustrating.
covered above
> A second concern I have is to do with the patent status of this work.
> I know from personal experience that there are a number of patents on
> reliable messaging held by major companies such as IBM, Microsoft,
> Tibco, who are not part of the AMQP effort. To what extent have the
> AMQP team evaluated the spec and codebase for patent infringement?

The code is original work using common patterns that are widely used,
will cover details in the submission of the CCLA and code grant with
Apache legal.

Good questions, thanks

> Paul
> On 7/19/06, Carl Trieloff <> wrote:
>> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 19 July 2006 03:07, Carl Trieloff wrote:
>> >
>> >>  I have provided a direct link to one of the docs on our site
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > The license is for the specification, which is far from an obvious 
>> one, so I
>> > would suggest to run this via
>> >
>> > The main questions for me would be;
>> >
>> >  1. Does the specification allows ASF to develop an Apache licensed
>> > implementation?
>> >
>> yes.
>> >  2. Are there parts of the specification that must be included in any
>> > distribution that limits the down-stream rights (the spec mentions 
>> that the
>> > spec itself is non-transferable)?
>> >
>> If I understand correctly what you are asking  - no, no limitations.
>> I will add this to be clear. anyone may copy, distribute, implement the
>> spec as long as they include the license - they can
>> do so in whole or any part there of
>> >
>> > Further,
>> > Are there any TCK associated with this work that are part of the 
>> specification
>> > work, and if so what are the licensing requirements at this end?
>> >
>> no.
>> If we need to I will be glad to do additional follow-up with Apache
>> legal on any issues that
>> requires that. We spend many hours well more like months looking at the
>> issues, so I am glad
>> to provide information as required.
>> Regards
>> Carl.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Niclas
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >
>> >

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message