[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] [PLEASE READ BY FRIDAY] Disentangling CPPASpecification Approval from any IPR Position endorsement.
CPPA TC members: To clarify a few things: Kartha asks if the spec can be withdrawn later, as Dale suggests the TC could do. The answer is Yes. According to the OASIS TC Process, last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2 (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml#sec2) the TC may withdraw a submitted specification any time before the end of the voting period. Furthermore (fourth paragraph), if any negative votes are cast against the spec the TC may vote to withdraw the spec after voting has ended. OASIS has been communicating with the proper persons at IBM to get some clarification on certain points in the latest IBM IP statement. Perhaps we will have an answer in a week, or perhaps in a month. We don't know how long it will take or what the answer will be; I suggest that the TC not wait for this. Given that the submission deadline for the quarterly OASIS approval calender is this weekend I would suggest that the TC vote on the specification strictly on its technical merits. If the TC would like to pass a resolution regarding IP to include with or in the spec that's fine with me. Once (if) the spec passes and TC decides to submit it to OASIS, member voting won't begin for 120 days, which should be sufficient for getting clarification from IBM. So the terms can be considered when members vote on the spec. If the IP terms are not to everyone's satisfaction then the membership of OASIS can vote against the spec, and include negative comments citing their reasons for voting against it. Given sufficient negative votes it would not become an OASIS Standard, but at least it would still be a Committee Specification, which say that the spec is complete and it is implementable. If the TC decides not to approve the spec, however, we won't have anything that can be called completed, inplementable work. One final note: submitting the spec to OASIS requires that three OASIS members certify that they have implemented the spec (TC Process Section 2, first para, item d). Furthermore, the OASIS IPR Policy (Section 3.2.A, second sentence) requires that any implementations used for advancing the spec must comply with known IP. Therefore, the three members must also state that their implementations are in compliance with the IBM license. Is this going to be a problem? </karl> ================================================================= Karl F. Best OASIS - Director, Technical Operations +1 978.667.5115 x206 karl.best@oasis-open.org http://www.oasis-open.org -----Original Message----- From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 1:28 PM To: Kartha, Neelakantan; Cppa (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] [PLEASE READ BY FRIDAY] Disentangling CPPA Specification Approval from any IPR Position endorsement. Some comments in-line. -----Original Message----- From: Kartha, Neelakantan [mailto:N_Kartha@stercomm.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:13 AM To: Dale Moberg; Cppa (E-mail) Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] [PLEASE READ BY FRIDAY] Disentangling CPPA Specification Approval from any IPR Position endorsement. I have a couple of questions/remarks about Dale's proposal. I hope these remarks will lead to some further discussion on Friday. 1. If we take the stance that the scope of the TC be confined only technical matters, <Dale> I only contended that the motions being balloted were concerned with technical questions. I did not say that the TC scope be construed as prohibiting consideration of anything but technical matters. The TC scope is given in part by the charter, and that is broad enough to permit various activities. </Dale> why are we even considering making a statement about IP (something clearly beyond the scope of the TC)? < Dale> OASIS requires that we have all members read the IPR policies and comply. We are involved with IPR issues from the outset. One of the very first things we did as a TC was discuss IPR disclosures! </Dale> In particular, by including a statement about retraction of the specification, are we not implicitly stating that IPR issues are something that we are serious about? <Dale> Yes, some members have wanted to "make some statement" about the IPR situation. This allows the TC, should they want to, to make a statement of some sort but not by casting NO votes on the technical merit issue. We are trying to divide the issues so that we achieve clarity about what is being said by a vote on a given issue. This is not happening at present. </Dale> Will this statement (if we decide to go that route) be a part of the specification or something separate? <Dale> TC decides. </Dale> 2. Does the technical committee have the authority to withdraw a specification once it has been submitted for approval? <Dale> We are a democratically organized TC and can approve resolutions that don't conflict with the bylaws probably. I see no conflict myself in doing this. </Dale> 3. In addition to the points that Dale noted regarding the lack of clarity of IBM's IPR statement, I would like to point out the following also: The IPR statement makes no mention of whether it can be retracted or changed in the future. <Dale> Good. I was hoping people would add ideas, so we can state what the position is. Please raise tomorrow. </Dale> Kartha -----Original Message----- From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:24 AM To: Cppa (E-mail) Subject: [ebxml-cppa] [PLEASE READ BY FRIDAY] Disentangling CPPA Specification Approval 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_statem ent.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