RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion

["Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>]

See http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/2210201
for news on W3C revised patent policy.

Fred Cummins
EDS

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Donald Steiner [mailto:donald.steiner@webv2.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 8:34 PM
> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
> 
> 
> 
> I've simplified Paul's modifications somewhat and have revised the
> numbering to make it more logical (IMHO:-).
> 
> Also, I think it may be unreasonable to expect that the 
> submitters have
> the licensing terms available so soon, so I loosened the time
> constraint. If the membership insists on having the terms by the F2F,
> then we can easily ammend the motion by taking out the word
> "preferrably" in 1.C. I think it's probably worthwhile for the BoF to
> meet at the F2F no matter what, even if for just a short time 
> to discuss
> next steps.
> 
> Best,
> 
>  - Donald
> 
> 
> "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) The TC chairs shall request the following from the 5 original
> submitters:
>    A) To drop all royalty and license restrictions.
>    B) In lieu of A) to offer a single, open license representing their
> common interests.
>    C) To make further details of the licensing terms 
> available to the TC
> membership as soon as possible, preferrably 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."
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Lipton, Paul C [mailto:Paul.Lipton@ca.com]
> > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 8:30 PM
> > To: Ben Bloch; Cummins, Fred A; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > >
> > > [...]
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>