Re: Fwd: DAML+OIL W3C Note

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 08/24/01

Next message: Dan Connolly: "Re: Fwd: DAML+OIL W3C Note"
Previous message: Mike Dean: "Re: Fwd: DAML+OIL W3C Note"
In reply to: Jim Hendler: "Fwd: DAML+OIL W3C Note"
Next in thread: Dan Connolly: "Re: Fwd: DAML+OIL W3C Note"
Reply: Dan Connolly: "Re: Fwd: DAML+OIL W3C Note"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

The issue of copyright status was discussed at the meeting.

Our view was that everyone was committed to letting W3C have the
appropriate rights.  

My stance on this, held, I think, also by Lucent's W3C AC member, is that
as a W3C member, the DAML+OIL stuff can be submitted to W3C and the
appropriate things will happen with respect to rights.  However I am
certainly not a lawyer, not do I play one with respect to W3C, so if W3C
needs an official letter from Lucent, then Lucent's lawyers may have to be
consulted, which could take considerable time.

peter

Next message: Dan Connolly: "Re: Fwd: DAML+OIL W3C Note"
Previous message: Mike Dean: "Re: Fwd: DAML+OIL W3C Note"
In reply to: Jim Hendler: "Fwd: DAML+OIL W3C Note"
Next in thread: Dan Connolly: "Re: Fwd: DAML+OIL W3C Note"
Reply: Dan Connolly: "Re: Fwd: DAML+OIL W3C Note"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST