Re: [election-services] NEW IPR POLICY

[Joseph Lorenzo Hall <jhall@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU>]

On 11/22/05, Simon Bain <sibain@tendotzero.com> wrote:
> David hi.
>
> OK "which by definition is open" Surely the fact that the EML spec 
> has been created by a technical committee of an organisation which 
> promotes e-business standards, and in this particular case by more 
> than one supplier and individuals would mean that any output from 
> the committee is open for others to use free of charge. The fact 
> that we are dealing with an XML syntax means that this code is not 
> hidden and is open to all to see and download. (And change if they 
> wish). Unless of course any of the companies and or individuals have 
> already stated that there input is subject to license restrictions. 
> (John?).
>
> Here I am talking specifically about the output thus far, ie the EML 
> syntax. Which the use of is open and the source code available to be 
> downloaded and modified without any license restrictions (See 
> company caviat above). However I am, as allways, open to be 
> corrected on this.

(sorry to be so curt; I'm in a hurry)

Someone pointed out off-list that the Sender ID component of the 
WS-Security standard was rejected by the Apache Foundation due to the 
inability for users to sublicense rights (specifically, each 
user/modifier would have to execute a separate license with the 
original patent licensor, Microsoft):

<http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2004-09-03-a.html>

As David pointed out, this article does a good job advocating for two 
additional IPR policy modes in OASIS (one where patent rights 
contributed are sub-licensable which would allow free and open source 
implementations and another where the patent holders explicitly agree 
to protect users with their own patent portfolios):

<http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=1597>

-- 
Joseph Lorenzo Hall
PhD Student
UC Berkeley, School of Information (SIMS)
<http://josephhall.org/>