RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion

["Lipton, Paul C" <Paul.Lipton@ca.com>]

Hi all,

As the person who originally proposed this motion, I, personally, would
be comfortable with the following modification of Donald Steiner's fine
revision incorporating two more items. First, that we ask the five
original submitters if they will consider dropping the licensing and
royalty restrictions. They will probably say no, but I agree with Steve
that this question should be formally asked and answered. Let them put
their decision on the record. I call this step 0 below. 

Second, which I call step 0a, requests that the five original submitters
create a uniform, single license that covers all of their rights along
with an open, well-defined mechanism for obtaining this license. At
least, this will simplify and expedite the process for implementers, and
keep things nice and clean. 

That said, please find the below version:

"The TC recommends creation of a Birds of a Feather group (BoF) to
examine licensing issues related to the BPEL4WS v1.1 specification as
submitted at the first meeting and implementations thereof. To aid in
this process:

0) TC chairs will request that the 5 original submitters consider
dropping royalty and license restrictions.
0a)  TC chairs will request, if response from step 0 is negative, that
the five original submitters present a single, open license representing
their common interests to the TC members.
1) TC chairs will request details of the current licensing terms from
the 5 original submitting members, which should be made available to the
TC membership before the next face-to-face meeting.
2) The BoF shall be open to the TC membership.
3) The BoF shall consider comments from the TC membership, which shall
be submitted by email or in person.
4) When practical and possible, the legal representatives of the
submitting members should be made available to discuss the observations
and/or recommendations of the BoF.
5) The BoF group shall meet at the next face-to-face meeting."

Thanks,
Paul

Paul Lipton
Technology Strategist, Office of the CTO
Computer Associates
P: +1 908 874-9479
F: +1 908 874-9178
E: paul.lipton@ca.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Bloch [mailto:ben_b54@hotmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 3:24 PM
To: Cummins, Fred A; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion

This is good advice but, although the TC is not a legal forum, it can
nonetheless faciliate the communication between TC members and the
original
submitters, which makes it easier/more efficient for everyone, including
I
would think the submitters themselves.

So the motion should be passed and, hopefully, the vendors will comply
by
the F2F. Obviously we can't make them but we can request their
positions,
whatever they are, be clarified at this time, to then give the TC a
basis
for any further discussion and actions, if any.  Until these licenses -
or
declared lack thereof - are made available to the TC or to the web (eg
Microsoft's WS-Security license
http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/docs/wss_license.asp) , however,
any
further discussions on this topic could, in my opinion, be quite
unproductive.


Ben

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>
To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Cc: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 2:28 PM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion


> I suggest that those who have a real concern about the
> IP rights and licensing pursue this with their attorneys
> rather than create a special committee and more discussion.
> I had a discussion with an attorney, and I believe there
> are legitimate concerns.
>
> Here is my understanding (not a legal opinion):
>
> The specification has been submitted for use as is.  There
> does not appear to be a waiver of copyright for use of
> portions of the specification in a new specification to be
> developed by the technical committee.
>
> The royalty free licenses are for patents that would apply
> to implementations of the proposed specification, not a
> specification that might evolve from this specification.
> Consequently, there is not necessarily any free license for
> patents relevant to the final specification.
>
> The OASIS policy seems to be quite liberal and does not
> ensure that specifications adopted by OASIS are free of
> IP rights of those who contribute, only that there is
> notice of relevant IP of participating companies that individual
> representatives are aware of.  Of course, there is always
> the possiblity that a specification will infringe on the IP
> rights of non-participants.
>
> Fred Cummins
> EDS
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rand Anderson [mailto:randerson@macgregor.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:55 AM
> > To: 'Howard N Smith'; steve@enigmatec.net
> > Cc: 'Sally St. Amand'; donald.steiner@webv2.com;
> > 'wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org'
> > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
> >
> >
> > Howard, Steve,
> > My suggestion:
> > 1. Vote in favor of the revised motion (as stated by Donald,
> > below) at this
> > Wed's conf call
> > 2. Attend the BoF at the F2F on May 28/29 to help figure out
> > what this is
> > all about
> >
> > Or, suggest a revision to the revised motion.
> >
> > HTH,
> > Rand
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Howard N Smith [mailto:howard.smith@ontology.org]
> > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 10:37 AM
> > To: steve@enigmatec.net
> > Cc: Rand Anderson; 'Sally St. Amand'; donald.steiner@webv2.com
> > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
> >
> > Steve,
> >
> > What is all this about? Either the spec is royalty free or it is
not.
> > All BPMI.org specs are royalty free, including BPML which is
> > already ahead
> > of WSBPEL in any case in terms of fitness for purpose,
> > functionality etc.
> >
> > Howard
> >
> > At 14:24 19/05/2003 +0100, Steve Ross-Talbot wrote:
> > >All:
> > >
> > >Generally I support the changes but only if the most
> > pressing question
> > >is asked first. It really is a two stage process. We need to
> > know if the
> > >license and royalty restrictions that may be in place can be
> > removed. If
> > >they cannot then the other things follow. But the simple
> > question is to
> > >ask for license and royalty free access.
> > >
> > >Cheers
> > >
> > >Steve T
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Rand Anderson [mailto:randerson@macgregor.com]
> > >Sent: 19 May 2003 14:07
> > >To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >Cc: 'Sally St. Amand'; 'donald.steiner@webv2.com'
> > >Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
> > >
> > >
> > >+1 on this revised motion - clean and clear, it is appropriately
more
> > >general in scope. The BoF can then refine and recommend the
> > appropriate
> > >objectives related to licensing for the TC, based on initial
> > input from
> > >those interested.
> > >
> > >I wouldn't say that working out licensing issues is part of
> > the purpose
> > >of this TC, but they (the issues) certainly are relevant to
> > the traction
> > >dimension of the protocol as a proposed standard. I personally
would
> > >like to
> > >*start* by just understanding how the licensing terms will affect
> > >implementers and adopters, before jumping into trying to
> > influence the
> > >terms themselves.
> > >
> > >Rand
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: Donald Steiner [mailto:donald.steiner@webv2.com]
> > >Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 5:13 PM
> > >To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >Cc: 'Sally St. Amand'
> > >Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
> > >
> > >
> > >This seems a bit overly complicated to me (understandably
> > so, as it was
> > >dynamically pieced together from the various suggestions during the
> > >course of the call this morning).
> > >
> > >I would propose the following rather broad remit, and leave
> > it up to the
> > >BoF to follow through on other suggestions (e.g. proposing
> > to drop all
> > >licensing restrictions, which IMHO would be quite unusual).
> > >
> > >
> > >"The TC recommends creation of a Birds of a Feather group (BoF) to
> > >examine licensing issues related to the BPEL4WS v1.1 specification
as
> > >submitted at the first meeting and implementations thereof. To aid
in
> > >this process:
> > >
> > >1) TC chairs will request details of the current licensing terms
from
> > >the 5 original submitting members, which should be made
> > available to the
> > >TC membership before the next face-to-face meeting.
> > >2) The BoF shall be open to the TC membership.
> > >3) The BoF shall consider comments from the TC membership,
> > which shall
> > >be submitted by email or in person.
> > >4) When practical and possible, the legal representatives of the
> > >submitting members should be made available to discuss the
> > observations
> > >and/or recommendations of the BoF.
> > >5) The BoF group shall meet at the next face-to-face meeting."
> > >
> > >
> > >Personally, I would like to see the original submitters
> > publish a joint
> > >licensing agreement that is automatically offered to anybody
> > using the
> > >specs. (Note, this does not say what the details of said license
> > >agreement would be, it would just make things un-bureaucratic and
> > >transparent as far as the formalities are concerned.)
> > >
> > >Best,
> > >
> > > - Donald
> > >
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >
> > >From: Sally St. Amand [mailto:sallystamand@yahoo.com]
> > >Sent: Friday, May 16, 2003 11:35 AM
> > >To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >Subject: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
> > >
> > >
> > >On the conference call scheduled for 5/21 a MOTION ON LICENSING be
> > >introduced. The Motion is
> > >
> > >The TC Co-Chairs will ask each of the 5 companies licensing the
BPEL
> > >v1.1 specifications 1) if they are willing to remove the licensing
> > >restrictions, and 2) for a contact who can represent the company in
> > >discussions with the TC on this issue. A Birds of a Feather
> > (BoF) group
> > >be formed from the member of the TC Committee to obtain
> > information and
> > >get clarification from the 5 companies who are licensing the
> > BPEL v1.1
> > >specification. The initial information to include a draft version
of
> > >each of the 5 companies licensing agreements.
> > >The BoF group to make available to all TC members each and
> > all versions
> > >of the licensing agreements for the BPEL v1.1 specification.
> > In addition
> > >the BoF group will serve as the focal point for receiving
> > questions on
> > >the issue of licensing and getting clarification, for creating
> > >mechanisms to publicize the issue to TC members and the
> > public at-large,
> > >and for specifying the need for legal assistance if
> > warranted. The BoF
> > >group will take comments and questions by email, and will meet at
the
> > >face-to-face.
> > >*************************************************************
> > ***********
> > >*******
> > >Send your revisions and comments to at least me, Diane or John. A
> > >consensus motion will be on the agenda for the conference call.
> > >Sally
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > >The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > >This email is confidential and may be protected by legal
> > privilege. If
> > >you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or
> > disclose its
> > >content but  delete the email and contact the sender
> > immediately. Whilst
> > >we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not
> > liable for
> > >any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their
> > own antivirus
> > >software.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >This email is confidential and may be protected by legal
> > privilege. If you
> > are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or
> > disclose its content
> > but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately.
> > Whilst we run
> > antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable
> > for any loss or
> > damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus
software.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > New Book - Business Process Management: The Third Wave
> > www.bpm3.com
> >
> > Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org
> > cell             +44 7711 594 494 (worldwide)
> > home office +44 20 8660 1963
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org