[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [chairs] Patent license friction...
On Tuesday, May 2, 2006, at 06:57 AM, David RR Webber ((XML)) wrote: > Robert, > > Thanks for clarifying all this. > > It might be an idea to add a colour coded column to this table - > > http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/ > > to indicate which ones are RF and which ones require licensing for > implementers - as right now everything is lumped together - and people > may be forgiven for thinking these being all publicly approved spec's > means they are all open and public licensing as well. RF doesn't mean license-free, it means royalty free. jeff > > I understand the need to be able to keep everything in synch'. I'm > not sure that decoupling the IP needs from the spec' however is > necessarily turning out in practice to be the best / least > confusing approach. We could always allow adminstrative corrections > to specifications directly when IP needs change - that would cover off > the points you raise. That way we have just one place for everything > - the specification download. > > One question though - if I sign an agreement - and then subsequently > the terms change - do I have to re-sign? Seems like we probably have > to have that covered in the IP assignment clauses that OASIS asks for > - so grandfathering can occur. > > DW > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [chairs] Patent license friction... > From: "Philpott, Robert" <rphilpott@rsasecurity.com> > Date: Tue, May 02, 2006 9:40 am > To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <david@drrw.info>, "Wachob,Gabe" > <gwachob@visa.com> > Cc: "Chairs OASIS" <chairs@lists.oasis-open.org>, "Frederick Hirsch" > <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "John Messing" <jmessing@law-on-line.com> > > #wmMessageComp st1\:* {behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } #wmMessageComp > /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Wingdings; panose-1:5 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} #wmMessageComp @font-face {font-family:Tahoma; > panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;} #wmMessageComp /* Style Definitions */ > p.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp li.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp div.MsoNormal > {margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; > font-family:"Times New Roman";} #wmMessageComp a:link, #wmMessageComp > span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} > #wmMessageComp a:visited, #wmMessageComp span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed > {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;} #wmMessageComp p > {mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0in; > mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; margin-left:0in; font-size:12.0pt; > font-family:"Times New Roman";} #wmMessageComp span.EmailStyle17 > {mso-style-type:personal-reply; font-family:Arial; color:navy;} > #wmMessageComp @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in > 1.0in 1.25in;} #wmMessageComp div.Section1 {page:Section1;} > > > From:David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:david@drrw.info] > Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:19 PM > To: Wachob,Gabe > Cc: Chairs OASIS; Frederick Hirsch; John Messing > Subject: RE: [chairs] Patent license friction... > > > > Gabe, > > > > As a TC chair I've not had to cover IP on a spec' so I'm a > little surprised to find that this is not more formally addressed in > the OASIS specifications requirements. > > > > I would expect something akin to: > > > > a) All licensing requirements clearly stipulated as part of the body > of the specifications in a specific document section (beyond just the > normal OASIS license blurb). > > [RSP] As IP issues can arise at any time, including after the spec has > been approved, I feel that putting such info in the spec is not a good > idea since it could end up being incomplete unless you rev the spec. > The current document template refers people to the IPR page on the TC > web site and, IMO, that should remain the authoritative, single place > to go look for IP claims and the required licensing for those claims. > If the web site is not clear, especially on the licensing process, TC > administration should address it with the IP claimants and get it > corrected. But I personally don’t want to see this stuff going in the > specs. > > > > b) Addendum entry that references points of contacts for members that > are asserting license claims > > [RSP] As I said, IMO, the web site is sufficient. > > > > c) Reference to a ZIP file stored in the TC documents area that > contains a copy of each actionable license from each such member. > > [RSP] This MIGHT be a reasonable thing to do, but since companies > sometimes change their contract and licensing forms or update license > wording, they might not want to do this, and it runs the risk of > becoming incomplete as well. Also, since some IP might be asserted by > companies that are not OASIS members, you’d not likely get them to > provide such a file to include in the ZIP file. > > > > I don’t believe the web site says this, but if other non-member IP > claims are known, there probably SHOULD be a place on the TC IPR page > to at least mention that and hopefully list who they are. I’ll also > point out that the IPR pages could be organized a bit better. Just > putting some links at the top to each of the individual declarations > would be helpful. As it is now, it’s just a set of letters appended to > each other and you have to just scroll through them. > > > > We could then go one step further and note that members who waive the > right to include such entries a) thru c) - are therefore providing a > RF license for any relevant IP they may adjudge to be applicable > either currently or subsequently later. > > > > If this is not the case - I would suggest we ask the BOD to review > this urgently and create policy - before we get more IP related > specifications out there that are not clearly delimited. > > [RSP] I certainly don’t feel that it’s not clear who has made IP > claims on SAML (they’re all on the web page at > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/ipr.php); the TC process > is quite clear about soliciting claim info from members and getting > those declarations posted. However, the licensing process in the > Fidelity statement IS currently ambiguous. This was actually pointed > out to them recently and we’ve been working with them to get that > fixed (it’s almost done). The licensing process for the AOL and RSA > claims however are quite clear. AOL uses a defensive suspension > provision (i.e. you don’t have to do anything to get an RF/RAND > license, but if you bring any IP claims against them, you lose that > license). The current RSA process states that implementers MUST > download/sign/return a license from the RSA web site (link is > provided). Note that this will be changing very shortly as we have > submitted a new letter to OASIS in the past few days that changes our > process to a defensive suspension provision, ala the AOL declaration. > > > > IMO, if there are TC’s with encumbered specs that don’t have clear > info on their TC IPR page for users of the specs, then that is a > problem that TC administration should address with the TC. I don’t > think we need additional, multiple places to put the info where the > possibility arises for one (i.e. the specs, a ZIP file) to become > out-of-date. > > > > It’s always a technology adopter’s responsibility to find out whether > they are using someone else’s IP, and if so, properly licensing that > IP. The current OASIS process is clear on how to locate that info. > OASIS can and should make sure that the info is clear on the licensing > process for each claim, but that’s a relatively minor admin issue IMO. > Once the claims and licensing process are declared,it’s the > responsibility of the IP holder to monitor industry use of their IP > and ensure that users are licensed. Otherwise, I believe they run the > risk of losing their rights to the IP because they didn’t attempt to > defend their claims – obviously IANAL so take this with a grain of > saltJ) > > > > > > > > -- Jeff Mischkinsky jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com Director, Web Services +1 (650) 506-1975 (wk) Oracle 500 Oracle Parkway Redwood City, CA 94065
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]