RE: [wsbpel] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

Harvey,
I love that term! It should be explicitly mentioned in the text of the policy ...

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harvey Reed [mailto:hreed@sonicsoftware.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 8:01 AM
> To: 'Howard N Smith'; steve@enigmatec.net
> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org; jevdemon@microsoft.com; Ugo Corda;
> 'David RR Webber'
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors
> 
> 
> Howard, Steve, et al,
> 
> This is similar to a policy of "mutual assured destruction", 
> whereby the
> initial authors hold IP and promise not to sue if others 
> promise the same.
> 
> ++Harvey
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard N Smith [mailto:howard.smith@ontology.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 5:13 AM
> To: David RR Webber
> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org; jevdemon@microsoft.com;
> UCorda@SeeBeyond.com; steve@enigmatec.net
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors
> 
> David,
> 
> Thanks for this.
> 
> The issue is complex for most, and, quite unnecessary. For 
> someone with the
> capability and intellect of Steve to write on this matter 
> must mean there
> are issues underneat this that have not been brought to 
> light. This is why
> BPMI.org took the position it did in respect of BPML from the outset
> and hence we see good BPML products today being used in practice.
> For the life of me I don't understand this licence thing. 
> Perhaps Diane
> and John can answer on behalf of the BPEL authors, or at least, those
> that put their name on it.
> 
> Howard
> 
> At 04:34 PM 12/2/2003 -0500, David RR Webber wrote:
> >Howard,
> >
> >Anticipating that you will not get any direct answers to the 
> question -
> >let's
> >brainstorm on some possible rationale.
> >
> >Patents, paranoia, and patents, oh yes and patents.
> >
> >The possibility that some submarine patent may be granted by 
> the inept
> >PTO process that then causes the standard to be an 
> infringement thereof.
> >
> >Then the paranoia of corporate lawyers and patent lawyers that just
> dictates
> >they stipulate that anything patentable should be, afterall that's a
> >win-win-win
> >for them - first they cannot be sued for not applying for 
> IP, second its
> >more
> >work for them managing said portfolios, and third they do not have to
> >answer emails relating to this topic on the grounds that its 
> under IP -
> >PERFECT!
> >
> >However the way out of this empasse it would seem is for 
> OASIS to accept
> >donations of IP.  However the track record so far here has been a bit
> >gloomy.
> >
> >I would recommend that all five companies involved in the RF license
> >situation
> >donate their IP to OASIS for use in defending possible 
> attacks on users of
> >the standard.  This appears to be a win-win-win-win for same 
> - since now
> >they can garner kudos instead of suspicion from their 
> actions - and in the
> >event
> >of an extremely unlikely attack occuring - then everyone can 
> contribute to
> >the defense fund.  A further win is this resolves the 
> current RF debate
> >within
> >OASIS - since companies contributing IP to a standard would expect to
> >donate that IP to OASIS and have them then defend the standard as
> >necessary.
> >
> >DW.
> >
> >----- Original Message ----- 
> >From: "Howard N Smith" <howard.smith@ontology.org>
> >To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>; <jevdemon@microsoft.com>
> >Cc: <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>; <steve@enigmatec.net>
> >Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:58 AM
> >Subject: [wsbpel] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors
> >
> >
> >> John,
> >>
> >> Can any BPEL primary author on this list give any reason 
> why licenses are
> >required and what possible purpose can
> >> they have in the development of a standard?
> >>
> >> Steve R-T wrote:
> >>
> >> >like many small companies and some big ones too we are 
> interested in
> >getting product out based on BPEL4WS1.1.
> >> >Let's call it a teaser for the real thing. We rely, as a smaller
> company,
> >on being fleet of foot. Alas the problems with
> >> >licensing BPEL4WS1.1 so that we are in the clear (and 
> when you are small
> >this is so very important) reduce our ability
> >> >to be fleet of foot. Our customers, having been aware of 
> the licensing
> >problems in the TC, are unwilling to try the stuff
> >> >unless we shoulder the license burden. Given we cannot 
> even get this
> >sorted out it difficult to build a business around
> >> >BPEL until the mess is cleared up. All very depressing ....
> >>
> >> While you were quick to respond John, I think the point is 
> missed. I
> >concur with Steve. Firstly, there should be no need
> >> for licenses to do with BPEL if the intention was to 
> create a standard. I
> >never did understand the reason why such
> >> licenses were wrapped around the work of this group. 
> Giving that control
> >to the BPEL authors was not in the best
> >> interests of OASIS or the members.
> >>
> >> BPMI took the view that such things are unnecessary, and 
> the folks who
> >donated ipr to BPMI.org as part of the
> >> development of BPML never did that, nor had no need to. 
> After all, the
> >point of standards is that vendors compete
> >> on the basis of implementating them, not creating them. 
> Imagine if the
> >relational model when it was proposed
> >> had needed licenses!
> >>
> >> As a next best step, if OASIS insists on licenses for 
> reasons unknown,
> why
> >not let OASIS issue it. It is silly to have
> >> small vendors have to waste valuable development time and resources
> >chasing licenses from big gorilla vendors.
> >> I just don't get it. I see no reason why one would be 
> required, and I
> >think several of our members at BPMI.org, and some
> >> here, are naturally suspicious about the reasons for such 
> licenses. I
> >think this is the point under Steve's note, which is
> >> only natural. Just getting further clarification from BPEL 
> authors like
> >Siebel misses the point John.
> >>
> >> And of course, the underlying model of the pi math behind this
> innovation,
> >really cannot be subject to license in any case.
> >> I don't think prof Milner would appreciate that. Sorry to 
> be flippant,
> but
> >when these sillynesses arise, sometimes
> >> being flippant is necessary to hammer the point home.
> >>
> >> Howard Smith
> >> co-chair BPMI.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> New Book - Business Process Management: The Third Wave
> >> www.bpm3.com
> >>
> >> Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org
> >> cell +44 7711 594 494 (operates worldwide, dial UK)
> >> office +44 20 8660 1963
> >>
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of
> >the OASIS TC), go to
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/l
eave_workgroup
.php.
>>
>>

---

New Book - Business Process Management: The Third Wave
www.bpm3.com

Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org
cell +44 7711 594 494 (operates worldwide, dial UK)
office +44 20 8660 1963 


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.
php.