[cgl_discussion] Re: [OCF]draft 0.8 of the SAF Application Interface specification

[Timothy D. Witham]

On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 07:11, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2002-12-10T11:21:38,
>    Peter Badovinatz <tabmowzo at us.ibm.com> said:
> 
> Hi all, it took me a while to get to the OCF list after my shamefully long
> vacation (of which I am somehow not ashamed at all ;-), but I have a few
> thoughts to add here:
> 
> > >   The main issue is that the license is revocable until this
> > > is resolved.  Because of this the risk to anybody who produces
> > > open source software based on this specification is very high.
> > 
> > Intent is to address the revocation issue at the SAF Board meeting in
> > mid-January (before Linux World). 
> > 
> > Also, I have made arrangements for the OSDL CGL Technical working group
> > to have face to face meetings in conjunction with Linux World New York
> > (Jan 21-23).  
> > 
> > The SAF have requested (and I have requested of them) to have a couple
> > of their technical leads participate with OSDL CGL, so you can all find
> > out that SAF isn't simply a delusion of my imagination.
> > 
> > As OCF folks will ALSO be having a face to face concurrently in NYC in
> > January, we should have all the players in one place.
> 

  We are waiting to see the "new" license as we have given feedback as
to what it should take to make it usable for OSS developers. I
understand that we should see something on this by the end of this 
month.

  I think that we will find that there is a bit of a gap between what
the SAF has specified and the base functionality that the OS has to
implement. I can't be sure as we (OSDL) haven't seen the spec but in
talking to people who have it seems that the SAF is aimed more at
application portability at the middleware level and not talking directly
to the OS.

  But I think that the SAF folks want to resolve this so that we can
start looking and determine what needs to be implemented as base OS
functionality and start filling in the gaps. 


> I am very much in favor in aligning OCF and SAF as far as possible; afterall,
> this is all about increasing interoperability. I'm not religious on doing this
> annoying standarization work myself at all.
> 
> Our (SuSE's) point of view is that we 'just' need the API definition part
> solved to reduce our pain at integration time; and if SAF gets that 80% right,
> and if they are available under a suitable license (this being a very
> important 'if'), I think we (this time, OCF ;) can benefit immensely.
> 
> It is, I think, clear that OCF did not have the impact we all hoped for, for
> manifold reasons - no bandwagon effect has happened. A boost here is needed,
> and I am all for pragmatic solutions.
> 
> If SAF does have the backing and thus the impact and addresses the overlapping
> parts adequately (no spec is perfect in version 1.0), we could rather join
> forces on the remaining parts.
> 
> I'd expect both sides would need to make some accomodations for the other -
> we'd need to find a way how we could contribute to the SAF process, for
> example - but in the end, it would be a real win for all.
> 
> I think SAF would profit from having a OSS implementation available; this
> seems to be in line with the CGL and DCL projects, and we could join forces on
> this task. OCF could benefit from the work already done and concentrate on
> other issues.
> 
> I will be in NYC from the 21st to the 26th and am looking forward to
> discussing these possibilites.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
>     Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb at suse.de>, speaking for SuSE
-- 
Timothy D. Witham - Lab Director - wookie at osdlab.org
Open Source Development Lab Inc - A non-profit corporation
15275 SW Koll Parkway - Suite H - Beaverton OR, 97006
(503)-626-2455 x11 (office)    (503)-702-2871     (cell)
(503)-626-2436     (fax)