RE: [election-services] NEW IPR POLICY

["David RR Webber \(XML\)" <david@drrw.info>]

Joe,

 

The biggest change for me is the mere fact that these things become "normal practice" and institutionalized into the OASIS process as part of the OASIS RF based process.

 

Prior work both here and elsewhere in OASIS worked on the premise that such things are an anethema and completely contrary to the spirit and essense of the open public work intended.

 

In the Apache case they simply rejected the feature completely and removed it.

 

So the issue then becomes - that potential adopters cannot know - if a TC is using the new OASIS RF policy if it really intends to operate in the prior mode under that new IPR mode - or if it is operating in this new mode where future use of specifications may potentially have conflicts of use.

 

That is the essence of the issue.  We do not have the exact equivalent of the original modus operandi of a significant portion of TCs - and in fact that has been explicitly removed as an option...

 

DW 

 

 

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re:
> [election-services] NEW IPR POLICY
> From: Joseph Lorenzo Hall
> <jhall@SIMS.Berkeley.EDU>
> Date: Tue, November 22, 2005 11:31
> am
> To: OASIS EML TC
> <election-services@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
> 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/>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To
> unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
> that
> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all
> your TCs in
> OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php