[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] [PLEASE READ BY FRIDAY] Disentangling CPPA SpecificationApproval from any IPR Position endorsement.
The current motions and mail ballots were intended, IMO, to
address
the question of whether the 2.0 specification should be
approved
by the TC and whether the specification should be moved
forward
for possible approval by OASIS. We clearly were aiming at a
June
initiation of the OASIS process. That would result in an October
vote
within OASIS. To delay entering the OASIS voting process
would push the
consideration of the specification to January 2003,
beyond the current
lifetime of the group. It would might adversely
impact member companies
hoping to release products
based on the 2.0 specification prior to
2003.
The voting is now known to also involve polling the membership
on
whether they are satisfied with the current IPR disclosure
statements
pertaining to the specification. Members are tacitly being asked
to use
the current ballot to make some statement about the current
IPR
situation, and in particular the vague language of the second
IBM
statement.
I have asked the membership to consider dividing these
issues.
There is nothing this TC can do with its specification to meet
objections
to language in an IPR disclosure statement. If the IPR terms are
unacceptable
in the market, the specifications will meet their fate and we
will know
why that happened. If we prevent the specification from being
approved,
we simply make this TC return to its work with no way to fulfill
its goal.
In such a situation, I would urge reconsideration of whether the
charter
of this group can be fulfilled and whether we should spend our
energies
elsewhere. I believe that this remark reveals why it is unfair
to
try to exploit negative votes on specifications to try to achieve
some
other extraneous goals or play a tactical role in
lobbying schemes.
I
do not, however, wish to prevent members dissatisfied with
the IPR proposals
from making a statement. We are therefore
considering how to place the
collective consensual
stamp of approval of this technical
committee on a
resolution or statement that expresses
a shared view on the current IPR
statement.
I am putting the following language forth for your
discussion.
Consider particularly the statement about intended
retraction
of the specification from OASIS consideration if current
IPR
language is not clarified.
Thanks, Dale
Moberg
==============================================================
The
OASIS ebXML CPPA TC membership has requested that holders of
patents that may
be required for the implementation of the standard,
disclose such patents to
OASIS and to the ebXML CPPA TC. One such disclosure
has been obtained from
IBM,
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-cppa/documents/ibm_ipr_statement.shtml
The
OASIS ebXML CPPA TC finds this disclosure to be
unclear in its intent to ask
for "reciprocity," and overly restrictive
in invoking limitations to CPPA
specifications by specific version numbers.
The ebXML CPPA TC would also like
clear language allowing the transfer
of rights to derivative works as found
within typical open source
licensing and/or copyright frameworks.
The
ebXML CPPA TC has not undertaken any patent searches
in order to identify
which, or whether any,
patents may apply to its specifications. Nevertheless,
it is
the intent of this TC that its specification be freely
implementable
by commercial software developers, end users,
and the open
source communities.
[Is this idea also to be included?]
The ebXML CPPA
TC, by its approval of its
specification, does not recommend
that
implementers of the OASIS CPPA
functionality accept announced
procedures
or assume applicability of IPR claims, because
the ebXML CPPA
TC takes no position on the validity of any
claim or any patent rights that
have been or may be disclosed.
[ Is this something we endorse?]
The
ebXML CPPA TC believes that the basic idea of exchanging shared
configuration
information in order to deploy distributed processing
systems has a long
history, and that there exists much
prior art for exchange and use of this
information.
[Retraction announced]
If the current IPR statement has
not been clarified sufficiently
by the October 2002 OASIS voting period, it
is the intention
of this Technical Committee to withdraw its specification
from
the OASIS approval process.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC