New IPR policy - a giant step backwards?

["David RR Webber" <david@drrw.info>]

Good and Gentle Folks

 

I've finally found time to read the new IPR policy following Patrick's excellent posting on the topic.

 

Unfortunately I could not recommend any of the three proposed modes to my TC as they represent

IMHO a giant step backwards.

 

This especially applies to work that came into OASIS from UN/CEFACT - but also other TC's that

have subsummed government funded work where the requirement is for open contributions

that are not burdened by any IPR considerations.

 

If the TC already has open public specifications that are completely free of any licensing requirements

and are available with open source implementations - why would such a TC want to open the door

to contributions that may taint the position of that existing established body of work?

 

I therefore see - to maintain backwards compatibility - that we need to have a fourth category of

open public work that is not burdened by any IPR or licensing considerations.  Members joining

such a TC would up front understand that they may not contribute any work that does not meet

these criteria.

 

Frankly - I'm dismayed that the three modes proposed for OASIS could be viewed as merely

opening up the door to widespread and extended licensing requirements to become the

normal modus operadi - instead of them being rare and exceptional practice. 

 

I see that OASIS should be taking a stand to establishing open standard practices - not the

reverse.  If a TC is created around IPR - that's there business - but we need to maintain

a very clear distinction between that and all the existing other OASIS specifications.

 

Frankly - whether I work for a company or not - with the three proposed modes - why would

I not file IPR on everything I ever submit to OASIS in future?  This is just a recipe for

insanity - where I can force every company in a TC I am in to sign a licensing agreement

from me once I become a member and contribute anything at all to it.

 

The European Community is taking a higher position on all this than the USA.  Given the

level of international participation and increasing interest in OASIS the new IPR modes

simply point to a dark and ugly shadow being cast over our specifications that IMHO

would drive away such governments and organizations ever wanting to use our

specifications.

 

We need the fourth option to have unequivocal and clear specifications that are completely

unburdened and open public works.   We need advice on this.  I'm assuming that if a TC

decides itself - that that is a requirement for participation - then it can adopt that as its

charter instead of the 3 IPR based options being offered up here?

 

Thanks, DW