Hello silicon folks,
Please find below my email to an OASIS legal specialist, and his extensive reply.
From what I understand, referring to IEC 61360 in an OASIS standard is no issue, as long as we do not include the content of the standard itself.
However, the SID specialization has to provide the users with DTDs, XSDs and documentation that describe the grammar, the elements that compose an SID topic. Stating "for the data model, please refer to IEC 61360" is not an option, as the data model is the core of our work.
I guess the next step is to check with IEC what the options are. Mr. Clarke spotted this license (http://std.iec.ch/cdd/iec61360/iec61360.nsf/License?openPage) that enables free use of a bunch of attributes. In the same license IEC recommends to contact their Customer Service for further information about licensing. Before going to them though, I would like us to define what we need exactly from the IEC. Same for SI2 ECIX, though it seems like the whole thing was transferred to RosettaNet.
In spite of my short summary, please carefully read Mr. Clarke reply, as I might have missed important information or misunderstood something.
I already sent a warm thank you to Mr. Clarke for sharing this valuable analysis with us.
Regards,
Colin Maudry
Product Data Analyst and DITA Implementer
NXP Semiconductors www.nxp.com
High Tech Campus 60, room 4.406, 5656 AG Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 40 27 25833 Mobile: +31 646 53 94 33 colin.maudry@nxp.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jamie Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
Sent: 02 May 2011 08:25
To: Colin Maudry
Cc: John Walker; Bob Beims; Barbara Erbes
Subject: Re: Risk of legal issues if we use an existing standard
> Dear Mr. Clark,
>
> John Walker, Bob Beims and I are members of the OASIS and especially
> of the Semiconductor Information Design group, a subcommittee of the DITA
> technical committee.
>
> Our objective is to design a standard dedicated to data exchange in the
> semiconductor industry.
>
> In order to cover the exchange of parametric data (thermal, electrical and
> mechanical characteristics), we thought of using two existing standard:
> IEC 61360 and ECIX. That would be very helpful because we currently use
> these standards and it is pretty well widespread.
>
> The questions are:
> * what legal issues can we expect, if any, if we introduce concepts or data
> models that come from an IEC standard in an OASIS standard?
>
> * can OASIS members use the resulting standard even if they are not
> members of IEC and SI2 (the organization that publishes ECIX)?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Colin Maudry
> Product Data Analyst and DITA Implementer
> NXP Semiconductors www.nxp.com
> High Tech Campus 60, room 4.406, 5656 AG Eindhoven, The Netherlands
> Tel: +31 40 27 25833 Mobile: +31 646 53 94 33 colin.maudry@nxp.com
Dhr. Maudry:
Thanks for your inquiry, and deep apologies that I did not seem to
receive your earlier note. My colleague Barbara Erbes was good enough
to forward it to me, and I hope this will be a helpful response.
Let me try to provide some practical guidance, based on what we know,
I do need to offer a caution, though: OASIS cannot not supply legal
advice on these issues, because our policies make each participant
(each OASIS member) responsible for disclosure and clearance of any
rights issues (like copyright or patent) associated with their
contributions.
When TC members and editors contribute materials into an OASIS TC
specification, they will be held responsible (under the terms of our
IPR Policy), by later users of the specification, for the specified
assurances that the materials may be re-used. So I can make some
suggestions and provide pointers, here, but they do not change any
duties under our IPR Policy, and cannot replace or substitute for your
own judgment.
The license issues from combining multiple standards depend on how the
combination is achieved. Let me give a simple example.
An OASIS standard may say: "for this element, use ISO 3166 country codes."
That statement, by itself, usually will NOT be taken as an
infringement or problem by ISO, for two reasons:
1. Infringement of the code list: The OASIS standard does not
include a list of the codes, so it does not try to replace the
official ISO publication and deny revenue to ISO. (This is about
whether the OASIS spec would infringe the ISO spec.)
2. Royalties & licensing: One must check to see what limits are
imposed on the ultimate users/implementers as well. In this case, ISO
does not charge royalties for the use of the ISO 3166 codes:
http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref871. (This is about
whether a use of the OASIS spec also will easily be able to use the
ISO material.)
Any standards project OUGHT to have clear statements about permitted
republication, and clear statements about implementers' use, and
whether royalties and written licenses are required. That's because,
if there are no clear assurances, the assumption is that the work is
proprietary and can't be safely used without paying royalties, or
licensing from someone, or both.
Now let's apply that same view to the two specifications you mention.
A. IEC 61360.
1. I assume that, in describing physical parametric data in a DITA
message, your proposed specification (a DITA specialization) would
simply require *use* of the IEC 61360 component data dictionary, and
not repeat the code lists of 61360 in the DITA document. If not,
there should not be an infringement publication problem.
2. I note that a number of other parts & inventory projects (like
STEP, ISO 10303), also use 61360 (and the related ISO 13584 part
library standard). What IEC has done to make 61360 terms readily
available is issue a special use license, which can be seen here:
http://std.iec.ch/cdd/iec61360/iec61360.nsf/License?openPage. You
should satisfy yourself that the terms are acceptable to NXP. It
looks like IEC reserves the right to keep the list and database
current to IEC, but may freely permit persons to use values in the
database for the listed seven attributes (identity number, version
number, revision number, name/preferred name, unit, value format &
symbol). Ultimately, the DITA editors or contributors who propose use
of theses codes should confirm that the uses permitted by that license
adequately cover the uses that the DITA specialization will require.
B. ECIX from SI2
Unfortunately, the statements of license/royalty/re-use terms from SI2
are less clear. The spec does not state terms of use:
http://archives.si2.org/si2_publications/ecix/pdf/ectd.PDF The
general explanatory material seems not to do so either:
http://archives.si2.org/si2_publications/ecix/pdf/Si2_ECIXdatasheet.PDF
There are two general license/terms statement for SI2 visible. One,
relating to "coalition" projects, is here:
http://www.si2.org/?page=14 At first glance, this appears to say that
persons can use the SI2 material in production only if they become an
SI2 member. (In other words, if your specialization specification
required that a user include ECIX codes in a DITA message, they would
need to become an SI2 member in order to have the right to do so
without infringing on SI2's copyright.)
A second, at http://www.si2.org/?page=73, is dated 2004, and offers a
kind of written license permitting more implementation, but that
license appears to require signatures from the user and SI2. That may
be the "open availability" described in
http://ftp.si2.org/si2_publications/ecix/pdf/qdoverview.pdf. However,
please note, that license has some conditional license terms which
might require any user who extends the SI2 ECIX material (for example)
to also grant licenses to SI2, etc. It does not look like either of
the published SI licenses permit free use without some restrictions or
conditions.
Many of the semiconductor manufacturers of that era (2001) were SI2
members; so perhaps the issue of nonmember use may not have come up
much.
SI2's website describes the ECIX project as having been transferred to
RosettaNet, and that website has been significantly altered since that
organization's takeover by GS1. I do not see references to ECIF in
the current RosettaNet web pages, though some related material does
appear here: http://members.rosettanet.org/dnn_rose/DocumentLibrary/tabid/2979/DMXModule/624/EntryId/8395/Default.aspx
In summary, the status and ownership of ECIF, and who holds rights in
it, is somewhat less clear and reliable, on the face of it, than with
the IEC standard. Semiconductor/EE industry players may know more
about how their own head offices confirmed IPR clearance to continue
using ECIF. Sorry to have to report that it's not made immediately
clear to outsiders, from the available material.
Should we ask GS1 (as the current owners of RosettaNet), or the folks
who are still listed on the SI2 website? We'd be happy to make that
inquiry for you if you wish. Ultimately, those members who propose
use of the data elements are the ones who will be held responsible if
they're not usable; but we're happy to assist in trying to ferret out
more current information on the licensing applicable to this 2004
project.
Regards Jamie
~ James Bryce Clark
~ General Counsel, OASIS
~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark
www.identi.ca/JamieXML
www.twitter.com/JamieXML
http://t.sina.cn/jamiexml
New OASIS HQ number: +1 781-425-5073
New on FB: http://facebook.com/oasis.open