[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [rights] OASIS Rights Language TC...Questions
John, all
This was a good 1st meeting, in part because of the experience base of
those who participated.
Let me add to some of your remarks...
The Fast track process is afforded to organizations outside of ISO that
have proven themselves to have processes similar to those of ISO fro the
development of standards (CLASS A Liaison) . It allows standards to enter
the ISO balloting at its final stage referred to as FDIS. There is also a
CLASS C which has the very much the same ability to exchange delegates and
standards but would require the OASIS TC to submit to the complete set of 3
ballots thus allowing members of the ISO working group to comment and
perhaps modify the standard. RLTC would be well served by either
classification of liaison though MPEG may be more comfortable with a CLASS
C which would permit its experts to ensure that the OASIS standard meets
MPEG's needs.
The version control, extension process, and profiling provide a well
structured means of maintaining consistency. An extension and its
developers need to be to control its destiny. It is likely that they will
define "their profile" which will include reference to specific version of
the core and other extensions "their profile" will use. This provides all
with the ability to amend their extension and the RL TC to amend the core
as well.
With the exception of the ITU the standards adoption is voluntary, so
anyone could if they wish create a one-off version of any standard. Is that
wise well everyone is free to make their own business and technical
decisions...
Pete Schirling
Digital Media Standards
IBM Research Division
Office: +1 802 769 6123/Mobile: +1 802 238 2036/E-Fax: +1 802 769 7362
Mobile text messaging 8022382036@msg.myvzw.com
Internet e-mail: schirlin@us.ibm.com
John Erickson
<john_erickson@hplb. To: rights@lists.oasis-open.org
hpl.hp.com> cc:
Subject: Re: [rights] OASIS Rights Language TC...Questions
05/22/2002 11:23 AM
Please respond to
John Erickson
Regarding the questions I submitted on Saturday, some were answered
yesterday,
some weren't.
Also, I have added a sixth question, re open source implementations, at the
end...
See below:
> 1. What is the precise ISO "fast-track" liason status
> of this TC? Is it direct, or is it due somehow to XrML's
> adoption by MPEG --- which of course is ISO?
ANSWERED: RLTC does not currently have ISO fast-track liason status,
although
this could be pursued; currently there are three OASIS activities (esp.
ebXML)
that have this status.
> 2. What is the expected relationship of this effort to
> other fora, including MPEG, OeBF, WAP, 3GPP and <indecs>2-RDD?
> Will OASIS be the penultimate forum in which XrML is put in
> play, or will there be others?
ANSWERED: It is the *intention* that RLTC will be responsible for the RL
"core,"
and other activities, as required, may adopt appropriate extensions,
following
an extensions process and model established by RLTC.
Note that this new RL governance model must be create (action for Brad &
Peter)
and proposed to MPEG. Currently, MPEG is assuming a self-governance model
for
RL, based upon their requirements. They must "buy in" to the RLTC-based
core +
exntesions model.
> Specifically, what fora have adopted XrML?
ANSWERED: MPEG-21. But, as noted above, it was not the RLTC-centric model
that
they adopted...
> Is their adoption XrML put at risk by the possibility
> that the OASIS TC may *change* XrML, in the course of
> our authoring effort?
ANSWERED: There must be an un-ambiguous versioning process that helps
associate
versions of domain-specific extensions, as created and adopted by various
other
fora (e.g. MPEG), which versions of the core.
The issue of to what degree the core development should be influenced or
constrained by the demands of current adopters was a matter of debate...
> ...Also, what fora have rejected XrML? Why?
NOT ANSWERED
> 3. ContentGuard has "turned over" XrML to the OASIS process.
> HP and other participants expect this to be a concensus-driven,
> open authoring environment. What does ContentGuard envision
> their short-term and long-term relationship to the work product
> of this group to be? In other words, what is the difference
> between ContentGuard "product" and this group's work product?
> Does ContentGuard claim any special "veto" power over perturbations
> to the current, "core" XrML spec?
Partially answered: ContentGuard claims no "veto power" to the workings of
the
group, other than their voting representation on the TC (multiple CG
members,
multiple votes).
Not clear was if, and/or under what conditions, there will be a distinction
between ContentGuard XrML and RLTC-RL...
> 4. What is ContentGuard's view its long-term claim to IP in the
> work product of this group?
ANSWERED: In the form of CG's patent cover statement
> ...ContentGuard has made a substantial contribution to this
> activity by submitting XrML; to my knowledge there have been
> no other submissions, direct or through "sponsors." But our
> expectation is that, moving forward, this group may well produce
> new innovations. Who owns them? Plus, other parties may make
> contributions that have their own IP claims, suggesting
> a "licensing pool."
ANSWERED: CG stated that the OASIS IPR policies, as they appear on the
OASIS web
and as handed out in the meeting, hold. This means e.g. that
"specification-related documents" (including RLTC-modified versions of the
XrML
2.1 spec) will come under the copyright of OASIS. CG retains rights to any
IP
that reads on their various patents.
> There have been public statements by ContentGuard officials
> suggesting that their patents cover "all" rights expression
> languages; should we interpret this to mean that ContentGuard
> would consider our work product to fall under this as
> well --- regardless of our contributions?
NOT ANSWERED (at least not specifically)
> 5. What is the full extent of the expected licensing terms?
> For example, will adopters of the OASIS standard be required
> to display the XrML and/or ContentGuard logo? Will adopters
> be required to use a particular code set or tool kit, from
> a particular vendor?
NOT ANSWERED: This question was raised, and discussed to understand the
question, but ultimately was not answered.
Here's another question:
6. What is ContentGuard's position of open source (e.g. reference)
implementations of the anticipated RLTC-prodiced specification?
Thanks!
| John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
| Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
| PO Box 1158, Norwich, Vermont USA 05055
| 802-649-1683 (vox) 802-371-9796 (cell) 802-649-1695 (fax)
| john_erickson@hpl.hp.com AIM/YIM/MSN: olyerickson
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC