RE: [wsbpel] IPR claims and licenses

Title: Message

Hi 
James,

 

> 1.  
Contributors are not required to provide license terms until a specification 
that uses the contributions is up for approval.  

> It's my 
understanding that the approval stage for this TC is still several months 
away.   So the decision by the five contributors to post their terms 
earlier was voluntary.  

 

It was my 
understanding that the license terms so far published by the five submitters 
exclusively applied to their original contribution and did not necessarily 
extend to the following TC work and, in particular, to the future final 
specification. Your wording here seems to imply that my original 
interpretation was incorrect, and that those terms do indeed extend to the 
future final spec. Could you please confirm, and possibly point out terms of the 
published agreements that support your interpretation?

 

Thank 
you,

Ugo

 

 

Dr. Ugo Corda 
SeeBeyond Technology 
Corporation 
Standards and Product 
Strategies 
+1-626-471-6045 
(US-Pacific) 

  

  
-----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce 
  Clark [mailto:] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 
  2004 10:41 PM
To: 
Cc: 
  
Subject: [wsbpel] IPR claims and 
  licenses

To:  WSBPEL TC 
  members

    Recent postings to the TC list raise 
  questions about intellectual property licenses and availability of the TC's 
  work.  I may be able to answer some of those questions, though probably 
  not all.

    -- Inquiries about available IP terms 
  --
    When the TC was first launched, by resolution and in 
  some discussions, it asked OASIS staff to inquire, from the five 
  co-contributors of the TC's input BPEL4WS 1.1, what license terms will be 
  available for use of the contributed work as it may be incorporated into the 
  standards produced by the TC.  See http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200306/msg00048.html 
  and http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200306/msg00039.html. 
  The TC members also indicated some views about what kind of terms would be 
  desirable. 
     At the time of the TC's query, not all 
  of the contributors had posted their IPR claims or stated offered license 
  terms.  OASIS, and various TC members, made inquiries about the 
  terms.  As a result, all five of the contributing companies have posted 
  specific license terms (or, in some cases, indications that no claims are 
  made) to the public notice site for the TC's IPR:  http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbpel/ipr.php. 
  
     Although there are still some conversations going 
  on about these terms, it is my understanding that the posted documents do 
  represent the terms on which each of the contributors are willing to make 
  their claimed rights available.

    -- How OASIS Policy 
  works --
    Let me mention some principles from our IPR 
  Policy and TC Process:
    1.  Contributors are not 
  required to provide license terms until a specification that uses the 
  contributions is up for approval.  It's my understanding that the 
  approval stage for this TC is still several months away.   So the 
  decision by the five contributors to post their terms earlier was 
  voluntary.  
    2.   OASIS policy allows our 
  CEO to work with any contributor to ensure that availability terms are 
  *stated*.  We can encourage contributors to make them as simple and 
  useful as possible.  We can enforce valid charter constraints, like an 
  approved RF requirement, which some of our TCs have.  But otherwise OASIS 
  isn't, and shouldn't be, in a position to mandate the terms offered for 
  availability.  
    3.   This results in a 
  market-based system of approval:  If users and developers find a set of 
  restrictions agreeable, they will use the work.  If not, they 
  won't.  If OASIS members feel that a work is so restricted or conditional 
  that it should not be approved, they are free to say so, and to vote against 
  it, when it is submitted for TC approval as a Committee Draft, or to the 
  membership as a candidate OASIS Standard.  We do not police the reasons 
  why members cast their votes.  
    4.   As 
  we discussed last summer, while e-mail is a relatively unlimited resource, 
  committee meeting time is not.  Ultimately, the TC operates under our 
  policies and Robert's Rules.  The TC members themselves are collectively 
  responsible for approving its agenda and allocating time between topics.  
  The use of TC time is up to the TC.  If IPR questions compete for agenda 
  time with the technical work, lengthy discussion is unlikely to meet the needs 
  of most participants until the final approval stage.  
  
    
    -- Where else to go with IP 
  issues --
    Sally St. Amand suggested earlier today (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200403/msg00248.html) 
  that members should "work ... on getting OASIS to get the IP issue out in the 
  open for discussion."   That is a fine suggestion.  However, 
  the TC's technical agenda time is not the only avenue to do so.  
  
    The TC has planned informal BoF sessions for those who 
  wish to discuss license availability.  The TC mail list is available for 
  whatever topics the participants wish to discuss.  Prospective users can 
  *directly* communicate their views or requirements about license availability 
  to the contributors.  (How can they adjust or react to market demand, if 
  the market is silent?)  And finally, our Board of Directors approves and 
  reviews our rules and procedures;  so if the constraints or rules stated 
  here aren't working for you, you should let our Board know about it, so that 
  they can consider changing them.  
  

       As a personal opinion, I agree 
  that fewer restrictions usually leads to broader adoption.  But the 
  entire "market" of web services and SOA is very, very young.  
  Realistically, no-one yet knows what kind of license models will prevail, and 
  how various types of restriction will work in practice.  Some standards 
  bodies have excluded commercial work by barring the door to any work with 
  *any* license claims attached.  At OASIS there is some flexibility -- we 
  have some projects which have no restrictions, some with a few, and some with 
  many.   As a result, many projects call us home.  Personally I 
  think this is a good thing, and the right way to promote standards growth and 
  convergence.  
    I apologize for the length of this 
  message.  Good luck with your meetings and thank you for your 
  participation.  JBC
    
~   James Bryce 
  Clark
~   Manager, Technical Standards Development, 
  OASIS
~   http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.shtml
~   
  +1 978 667 5115 x 203 central office
~   +1 310 293 6739 direct 
  To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the 
  OASIS TC), go to 
  http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.