[legalxml-courtfiling] [Fwd: RE: CA 2nd Generation Project, IP Issues]

[John Greacen <john@greacen.net>]

I am forwarding to all members of the Technical Committee Tom Smith's 
response to my inquiry about the intellectual property provisions of the 
California "second generation" project and the apparent conflict with 
the state's stated intention to "throw over the fence" to the OASIS 
Technical Committee its final specification for consideration as a 
national standard.  It seems clear to me from Tom's response that the TC 
will be able to test and comment on California's interim product, and 
could extend it once frozen, but could not otherwise modify it to make 
it suitable for national use.  So, it seems to me that we are on a 
course that will produce a California standard that the rest of the 
country can take or leave.  But the California product will not be 
available for use in developing a national standard, unless the national 
standard is identical to, or merely includes extensions to, the 
California product.  Am I misinterpreting Tom's response?

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: CA 2nd Generation Project, IP Issues
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:07:56 -0800
From: "T J Smith" <TJSmith@ITDecision.com>
Reply-To: <TJSmith@ITDecision.com>
To: <john@greacen.net>
CC: "Charlene. Hammitt@jud. ca. Gov" <Charlene.Hammitt@jud.ca.gov>, 
"Christopher Smith" <Christopher.Smith@jud.ca.gov>,	"Pat Yerian" <Pat.Yerian@jud.ca.gov>

John, my apologies for not getting back to you sooner. You raised an
important question and we've taken time to review the issue carefully.

I think the best way to explain the intent of the General Public License
(GPL) and our Second Generation Specifications (2GEFS) project's policies in
general is to step through the specification development process as
California AOC (AOC) intends to manage it.

The GPL itself will be drafted in a consensus-based process involving all
2GEFS participants and the AOC. It will seek to (1) grant joint ownership
and joint control of work products to participants as a fair exchange for
the intellectual property and time they will contribute to the project, (2)
ensure that world-wide public use of the specifications is allowed for free,
perpetually, and on non-discriminatory terms, and (3) give participants a
basis to legally prohibit someone from using the work products in an
"embrace, extend, and extinguish" strategy. We believe these factors address
problems that may have inhibited private sector contributions to
OASIS/LegalXML efforts. The merit of this approach (as established in the
2GEFS Conditions for Participation and draft GPL) is demonstrated by the
fact that all but one of the principal electronic filing service providers
in the United States have agreed to be participants in 2GEFS - and the one
abstention is due to a lack of resources rather than a lack of desire.

Upon completion of specifications we will publish them under the GPL to the
public, to the OASIS/LegalXML community, and to any other standards body or
stakeholder that either expresses an interest or that we believe might be
interested in adopting them. Following publication of the specifications,
there will be a six to eight month period during which the AOC will conduct
interoperability tests.  During this period the public and OASIS/LegalXML
TCs may implement the specifications and/or comment on the specifications.
We encourage implementation and comment in the belief that such activity
yields better results. At the conclusion of the period we will take all such
comments and lessons learned from our interoperability tests and either
revise the specifications or reject a suggestion with a written explanation
(consistent with W3C policy and, I note, the process used for the proposed
national Electronic Filing Process Standards).

We feel six to eight months is enough time for all stakeholders, including
the OASIS/Legal XML community, to test and debate the specifications and
provide comment.  We understand that if stakeholders' comments and concerns
are not fairly, properly, and adequately addressed, that it is less likely
stakeholders will adopt the specifications and they will go down their own,
separate path(s).  We will therefore endeavor to take all comments
seriously, including and especially comments from the OASIS/LegalXML
community.

Once comments and lessons learned have been incorporated, the specifications
are final and considered "frozen".  The developer community or anyone else
may implement products based on the specifications knowing they are stable.
Under the intended GPL there are provisions that allow authorized extensions
of the specifications provided that all such extensions be published back to
the owners. Absent this process, however, no one may produce derivative
works based on the specifications. This prevents the proliferation of
incompatible variants and is in the best interests of the participants and
any other developer who implements the specifications.  In any event, the
frozen specifications will be the basis for certification in California, and
California will itself be a licensee under the GPL.

As I noted above the participants are universally aware of the value of open
standards, and it will be to their mutual advantages to see the
specifications adopted or ratified by a national or international standards
body - I don't believe we would have succeeded in attracting any of the
participants without that common understanding. OASIS/LegalXML can influence
the initial specifications through the process described above. It can
extend the specifications through the process described above. Potentially,
it could even inherit the specifications if it can convince the owners and
licensors that OASIS/LegalXML is an appropriate and effective custodian of
standards. An OASIS member, the California AOC will work under the
provisions of the consensus-based procedures of the Electronic Court Filing
or other TCs to help realize the will of the membership with regard to 2GEFS
specifications.

Thanks for raising the question. I hope you find this to be a sufficiently
thorough and acceptable answer.

Regards,

Tom Smith
IT\Decision/CEFTS Program, CA AOC
tjsmith@itdecision.com <mailto:tjsmith@itdecision.com>
650.591.1795 (Ofc)
650.346.7689 (Mobile)
650.591.1425 (Fax)


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: John Greacen [mailto:john@greacen.net]
 > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:03 PM
 > To: TJSmith@itdecision.com
 > Subject: Re: CA 2nd Generation Project, IP Issues
 >
 >
 > Tom -- Thanks for following up.  Here is your IP statement from
 > the website.
 >
 > The Administrative Office of the Courts intends that final
 > specifications will be licensed under a general public license to ensure
 > that the specifications remain unaltered and free to use by anyone.
 > Following the development phases, specifications will be submitted to
 > the appropriate Technical Committees of the OASIS/LegalXML Member
 > Section as well as other national and international groups as proposed
 > standards for comment (but not for independent alteration or reuse, in
 > whole or in part). Assuming an interoperability project follows after
 > specification development, public comments will be solicited and
 > collected from implementers, from OASIS/LegalXML, and from other
 > interested organizations and individuals. Final recommended
 > specifications with public comments addressed or incorporated will be
 > published at the completion of each interoperability project.  Under the
 > General Public License, these final versions will not be subject to
 > change and software developers seeking California certification will be
 > required to conform to the specifications."
 >
 > The language "as proposed standards for comment (but not for independent
 > alteration or reuse, in whole or in part)" leads me to conclude that the
 > Technical Committee could not consider the California specification as a
 > possible national standard, make modifications it deemed necessary to
 > make it nationally acceptable, and publish the final product as a
 > COSCA/NACM or OASIS standard.  I had thought that was what you meant by
 > "throwing" your work product "over the fence" when you got it completed.
 >   The language in the final sentence -- "[u]nder the General Public
 > License, these final versions will not be subject to change" reinforce
 > that view.
 >
 > Do I misunderstand what you meant by "throwing it over the fence" or do
 > I misunderstand the wording of the IP statement?
 >
 > Thanks for thinking this through.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > T J Smith wrote:
 >
 > > John, I'm following up on your comment last Tuesday in Sacramento
 > > regarding your concern about IP/GPL issues and California's Second
 > > Generation Electronic Filing Specifications project. If my response
 > > didn't alleviate your concerns, would you mind elaborating on the
 > > subject in response to this message? I want to be sure the issue is
 > > addressed to everyone's satisfaction.
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > Thanks,
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > Tom Smith
 > >
 > > IT\Decision/CEFTS Program, CA AOC
 > >
 > > tjsmith@itdecision.com <mailto:tjsmith@itdecision.com>
 > >
 > > 650.591.1795 (Ofc)
 > >
 > > 650.346.7689 (Mobile)
 > >
 > > 650.591.1425 (Fax)
 > >
 > >
 > >
 >
 >
 > --
 > John M. Greacen
 > Greacen Associates, LLC
 > HCR 78, Box 23
 > Regina, New Mexico 87046
 > 505-289-2164
 > 505-780-1450 (cell)
 > john@greacen.net
 >
 >
 >




-- 
John M. Greacen
Greacen Associates, LLC
HCR 78, Box 23
Regina, New Mexico 87046
505-289-2164
505-780-1450 (cell)
john@greacen.net