[occi-wg] OCCI Editor Getting Started Guide (docs/README.txt)

[Andre Merzky]

Quoting [Sam Johnston] (Feb 21 2010):
> 
> Andre,

Hi Sam, 


> The intention is that the specification be available under both
> licenses (at the user's discretion).

"at the user's discretion" -- that is good to know, and should be
added to the text, IMHO.  Thanks.


> Being available under a Creative
> Commons license is [1]basically a requirement for Cloud APIs nowdays
> (much to my satisfaction) and anything else - especially the OGF
> default (which is far more restrictive than even the DMTF license!) -
> will surely stifle adoption whether justified or not.

I am not sure I see that, so please indulge me.  From a standard
specification I expect it to be freely available, and to be able to
distribute it unlimitely, and to be able to implement the described
standard w/o any penalty.  OGF IPR allows that.  What are the OGF
IPR restrictions you worry about?

CC allows the same, but *also* allows to change the document, and to
distribute that modified document again under the same terms.  What
I wonder, and sorry if I formulated that unclearly before: what is
the use case for that, i.e. what is the problem you are trying to
solve by Dual-licensing under OGF/CC?


> If that doesn't
> work for the OGF then I'll just release it under CC myself and
> remove/rewrite others' contributions (assuming they don't agree to do
> the same, which would surprise me).

Woah, full stop please: I am just curious about the licensing mode,
and ask questions about it, in order to *understand* it.  No need to
get defensive :-)


> I think the important thing in terms of the *normative* specification
> is to rely on trademark rather than copyright law - at the end of the
> day it's more effective anyway and it doesn't prevent your APIs from
> being reused by others.

I think I understand what you mean by trademark in respect to
standard specs.  I am not sure I see what you mean, that trademark
prevents your API from being reused.  Isn't that (a) the idea of
interface standardization, and (b) enforced by licenses rather than
trademarks?  I never felt compelled not to use some API just because
it has trademarks attached, as long as it was free...  Am I
misparsing your statement?

Thanks, Andre.


>    Sam
>    On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:41 PM, Andre Merzky <[2]andre at merzky.net>
>    wrote:
> 
>    Quoting [Sam Johnston] (Feb 18 2010):
>    >
>    > We maintain a Google Code repository at
> 
>      > [3]http://code.google.com/p/occi/ ...
>      Hi Sam, all,
>      the project states on the entry page, as it should :-), that all
>      material is under OGF IPR.
>      [4]http://code.google.com/p/occi/source/browse/docs/occi-copyright.p
>      df
>      states pretty much the same, but additionally states that
>       "The Open Cloud Computing Interface (OCCI) by Open Grid Forum is
>       dual-licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
>       License"
>      While I am a big fan of dual- or multi-licensing for source code, I
>      would appreciate the motivation for dual-licensing the OCCI
>      specification: what is the problem you are trying to solve?
>      In particular, I do not understand how Creative Commons makes sense
>      for a *normative* specification, as the usual use case for CC is to
>      create derivative work - which almost by definition will break the
>      standard, and will lead to confusion what document remains normative
>      etc.
>      Also, there are two modi operandi for dual licensing, AFAICS: either
>      the end user is free to pick what license to apply to the document,
>      or the end user is required to adhere to the specifics of both
>      licenses.  I assume that you choose the first modus, but that is not
>      explicitely stated in the document - as statement to that respect
>      should be added.  The second modus wuld not make much sense IMHO, as
>      the OGF IPR seems, to me, more constrained than CC (no changes
>      allowed), and the additional CC license would thus have no effect
>      whatsoever?
>      I know that license discussions can be tedious and tend to be
>      emotional.  Also, we all are probably not lawyers :-)  Anyway, if
>      you or someone initiated could shed some light on how and why that
>      approach was chosen, I would appreciate the insight.
> Best, Andre.