RE: [chairs] Proposal to address Open Source concerns

["Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>]

Jamie-
	For my clarification, what exactly do you mean by "inboard" vs.
"outboard"? I think everything I'm suggesting here is "outboard", but
I'm not sure what definition you have. 

	Secondly, I'm not sure why certification comes into play. If a
TC uses a patent/trademark/copyright specification license that the OSI
folks have approved, there's no additional "certification" or liability
shift required. Using a mark created and managed by the OSI are useful
in expressing conformance to the intent of the OSI ideals and
definitions, but in no way changes guarantees (or, more specifically,
the *lack* of guarantees) about the lack of IPR encumberances on a
specification (ie a non-OASIS-member third party can always assert
patent claims no matter what a TC does). 

	Finally, I was trying to suggest that instead of having multiple
licenses that would be OSI certified, TC's would essentially have to use
*one* (or one of a small handful) if they wanted to use the "Open Source
Compatible". These licenses would be pre-approved by OSI - that's where
I was suggesting the coordination would *have* to occur. 

	-Gabe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:44 AM
> To: Wachob, Gabe; chairs@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [chairs] Proposal to address Open Source concerns
> 
>      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
> 
> 
>