Re: [LAU] Proposal: OpenDAWS (long)

Doesn't this remain a license? The implementors agreement stipulates that a licensee may freely distribute but not sublicense, hence any interface defined by a DAW could not be used by another party who had not signed their own license - anybody downloading the DAW only has an end user license even though any party who signs up can distribute what they like. It looks lilke the agreement can also be revoked at any point by the AAF Org just by nullifiying their license. Additionally, does the current format demand a Microsoft storage license be singed as well? Their presentation was nice and fuzzy about using the community but that does seem a little bit like lipservice if they expect that a Microsoft agreement be signed as well. Are there any other licenses than those on their site that are a bit more open? Based on the apparant hype surrounding the XML format then perhaps the MS license is not longer a requirement, since the microsoft document on states that the SSL license code is a requirement of any AAF implementation to that date, potentially not in subsequent releases? Regards, Nick. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/