Re: Revised OASIS Membership Agreement - Draft for your Review

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

At 10:58 AM 10/21/2004 -0400, member_services@oasis-open.org wrote:
>[...]
>-  Clarify eligibility rules for Individual Members. Under the modified 
>agreement, OASIS membership categories will specify that only persons who 
>are acting on their own behalf, and are not contributing someone else's 
>intellectual property (such as under a work-for-hire or employment 
>arrangement), may join in the "Individual" member class. The objective is 
>to better assure that the parties who actually own or control the 
>contributions made to a TC are the ones who become members, and therefore 
>are bound by the IPR Policy.

For some of us who haven't been to law school, it is pretty frustrating to 
try to understand what the proposed Membership Agreement means for 
Individual Members, especially when combined with the above 
paraphrasing/interpretation.

On the one hand, looking at the above paraphrasing...  It seems a bit 
imprecise.  Does it apply to *any* individual member who is doing contract 
work (or who is employed) by a non-member company, and who has signed a 
typical work for hire (or employment agreement) with that company?  Or does 
it only apply to such individuals (who have signed...etc...) who are 
nevertheless "acting on their own behalf and are not contributing someone 
else's IP", i.e., does it apply only circumstantially to such individuals?

On the one hand, as I read clause 9 and appendix A, it seems to be saying 
something along the lines of the following.  Such an individual (who is 
doing work for hire and has signed a typical employment or work-for-hire 
agreement) may participate, if his/her employer agrees to be bound by the 
appropriate OASIS IPR rules.  I.e., it would seem that 9.2b or 9.2c would 
apply, in combination with the definitions of Necessary Affiliate or 
Ultimate Parent.

As I said, IANAL.  Is it possible to get some clear and precise 
interpretation of the rules for Individual Members, in layman's language, 
maybe in the form of an FAQ or a handful of examples that cover various 
Individual Member scenarios (proper full time employee of a non-member 
company, limited-term contract provider, etc)?

It is hard to comment on the proposal without understanding it, when some 
paraphrasing of it (above) is contrary to my reading the proposed 
Employment Agreement.  It would be really good if OASIS could circulate 
some clarifying material soon, as only two weeks remain to comment on the 
proposal(s).

Regards,
Lofton.