[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [chairs] Proposal to address Open Source concerns
If I am not mistaken the Technical Standardization Committee of the ABA Science and Technology Section is just compiling a group of clauses around these kinds of issues. If it will help I can make inquiries of the leadership of the committee. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [chairs] Proposal to address Open Source concerns > From: "Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com> > Date: Wed, February 23, 2005 1:58 pm > To: "James Bryce Clark" <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>, > chairs@lists.oasis-open.org > > 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 > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]