Re: [chairs] Proposal to address Open Source concerns

[James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>]

     Gabe (and team), thanks very much for a constructive suggestion.  I 
have a couple of preliminary comments below.  However, my principal 
response is to forward your message to the OASIS staff and Board.

At 04:23 PM 2/22/2005, Wachob, Gabe wrote:
>Chairs-  Both the XRI and XDI TC's were contacted directly by signatories 
>to Larry Rosen's open letter * * * We pointed out that both TCs have 
>always had the commitment to RF in our charters, * * *  However it became 
>clear to us in this dialog that there was a very real danger that those 
>who find issue with RAND in open standards could "tar all OASIS TCs with 
>the same brush". * * * However, we are also worried that the if OASIS does 
>not respond to the concerns of the Open Source community, there may be 
>strong incentive for potential Open-Source-friendly work to go elsewhere * 
>* * Our proposal is to have appropriate TCs use a prominent label/logo to 
>indicate that the TC's output is is "Open Source(tm) Compatible". * * 
>*  Since the Open Source community already defines the meaning of "Open 
>Source", we believe the best way to do move forward would be to engage the 
>Open Source community

     I think this is an interesting idea.  Note, it would be possible to do 
some kind of assurance or certifying from the inside *or* the outside.  We 
are at the brainstorming stage, so let's not rule anything out.  Let me 
mention, though, that I see some possible implementation drawbacks if this 
were done internally.
     One is, who certifies?  Who's liable?  And as you point out, some 
parties assert trademark & copyright on some phrases & definitions.
     The other is, frankly, my own aspiration to *reduce* patent lawyer use 
around here, not increase it.  Let me be blunt:  my hope, for the revised 
policy, was that by providing some pre-shipped and automatic licensing 
modes, we would help our TCs spend less of their standards-making cycles on 
patent debates.  Not more.
     Which raises the question, where *should* legitimate issues about 
licensing terms be raised?  Well, at OASIS we have a membership vote on 
each standard for this.  Everyone's welcome to vote projects up or down, 
for any reason, including patent-related concerns.  .
     Quite a few standards groups -- most of them, in our space -- have had 
projects badly slowed, or completely trashed, by long license 
controversies.  Everyone's trying to resolve that same issue -- *where* do 
we properly and more productively channel those issues for resolution?
     Some consortia have tried to address this by taking the decision out 
of the working technical body -- and putting it into a special star-chamber 
committee, or their top-level nonpublic board, or a single, Jon-Postel-type 
omnipotent leader.  I'm not so sure that's a good idea.  It gets back to my 
original point:  who gets to do the certifying?  If you want papal 
blessings, you have to have a Pope.  Popes, 
and-let's-make-a-secret-deal-at-the-top solutions generally, aren't a 
supported feature at OASIS.
      So I am a little skeptical of inboard, versus outboard, 
solutions.  Still, let's explore it further.

>* * * we believe the best way to do move forward would be to engage the 
>Open Source community (especially the attorneys and the people at the Open 
>Source Initiative) to:determine what such a label/logo might look like and 
>mean, and create or ensure that there is an OASIS RF license (for patent, 
>copyright, trademark IPR) mode for TC's that allows Open Source (tm) 
>implementation. We suggest this may be a very fruitful avenue for 
>discussion with the proponents of this letter, and invite the opinion of 
>other Chairs on this approach.

     Thanks again for a constructive suggestion.  I am passing this along 
for consideration. Best regards  Jamie

>Best,
>Gabe Wachob, Visa International, Co-Chair, XRI TC
>Drummond Reed, Cordance, Co-Chair, XRI & XDI TCs
>Geoffrey Strongin, AMD, Co-Chair, XDI TC
>__________________________________________________
>gwachob@visa.com
>Chief Systems Architect
>Technology Strategies and Standards
>Visa International
>Phone: +1.650.432.3696   Fax: +1.650.554.6817

~   James Bryce Clark
~   Director, Standards Development, OASIS
~   jamie.clark@oasis-open.org