OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-cppa message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] [PLEASE READ BY FRIDAY] Disentangling CPPASpecification Approval from any IPR Position endorsement.


CPPA TC members:

To clarify a few things:

Kartha asks if the spec can be withdrawn later, as Dale suggests the TC
could do. The answer is Yes. According to the OASIS TC Process, last
sentence of the second paragraph of Section 2
(http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/process.shtml#sec2) the TC may
withdraw a submitted specification any time before the end of the voting
period. Furthermore (fourth paragraph), if any negative votes are cast
against the spec the TC may vote to withdraw the spec after voting has
ended.

OASIS has been communicating with the proper persons at IBM to get some
clarification on certain points in the latest IBM IP statement. Perhaps
we will have an answer in a week, or perhaps in a month. We don't know
how long it will take or what the answer will be; I suggest that the TC
not wait for this.

Given that the submission deadline for the quarterly OASIS approval
calender is this weekend I would suggest that the TC vote on the
specification strictly on its technical merits. If the TC would like to
pass a resolution regarding IP to include with or in the spec that's
fine with me. Once (if) the spec passes and TC decides to submit it to
OASIS, member voting won't begin for 120 days, which should be
sufficient for getting clarification from IBM. So the terms can be
considered when members vote on the spec. If the IP terms are not to
everyone's satisfaction then the membership of OASIS can vote against
the spec, and include negative comments citing their reasons for voting
against it. Given sufficient negative votes it would not become an OASIS
Standard, but at least it would still be a Committee Specification,
which say that the spec is complete and it is implementable. If the TC
decides not to approve the spec, however, we won't have anything that
can be called completed, inplementable work.

One final note: submitting the spec to OASIS requires that three OASIS
members certify that they have implemented the spec (TC Process Section
2, first para, item d). Furthermore, the OASIS IPR Policy (Section
3.2.A, second sentence) requires that any implementations used for
advancing the spec must comply with known IP. Therefore, the three
members must also state that their implementations are in compliance
with the IBM license. Is this going to be a problem?


</karl>
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
OASIS - Director, Technical Operations
+1 978.667.5115 x206
karl.best@oasis-open.org  http://www.oasis-open.org

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 1:28 PM
To: Kartha, Neelakantan; Cppa (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] [PLEASE READ BY FRIDAY] Disentangling CPPA
Specification Approval from any IPR Position endorsement.


Some comments in-line.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kartha, Neelakantan [mailto:N_Kartha@stercomm.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 10:13 AM
To: Dale Moberg; Cppa (E-mail)
Subject: RE: [ebxml-cppa] [PLEASE READ BY FRIDAY] Disentangling CPPA
Specification Approval from any IPR Position endorsement.


I have a couple of questions/remarks about Dale's proposal. I hope these
remarks will lead to  some  further discussion on Friday.

1.  If we take the stance that the scope of  the TC  be confined only
technical matters,

<Dale>
I only contended that the motions being balloted were concerned with
technical questions.
I did not say that the TC scope be construed as prohibiting
consideration of anything but technical matters.
The TC scope is given in part by the charter, and that is broad enough
to permit various activities.
</Dale>
 why are we even considering making a statement about IP (something
clearly beyond the scope of the TC)?
< Dale>
OASIS requires that we have all members read the IPR policies and
comply. We are involved
with IPR issues from the outset. One of the very first things we did as
a TC was discuss IPR disclosures!
</Dale>
 In particular, by including a statement about retraction of the
specification, are we not implicitly stating that IPR issues are
something that we are serious about?
<Dale>
Yes, some members have wanted to "make some statement" about the IPR
situation. This allows the TC,
should they want to, to make a statement of some sort but not by casting
NO votes on the technical
merit issue. We are trying to divide the issues so that we achieve
clarity about what is being said
by a vote on a given issue. This is not happening at present.
</Dale>

 Will this statement (if we decide to go that route) be a part of the
specification or something separate?
<Dale>
TC decides.
</Dale>

2. Does the technical committee have the authority to withdraw a
specification once it has been submitted for approval?
<Dale>
We are a democratically organized TC and can approve resolutions that
don't conflict with the bylaws probably.
I see no conflict myself in doing this.
</Dale>

3. In addition to the points that Dale noted regarding the lack of
clarity of IBM's IPR statement,  I would like to point out the following
also: The IPR statement makes no mention of whether it can be retracted
or changed in the future.
<Dale>
Good. I was hoping people would add ideas, so we can state what the
position is.
Please raise tomorrow.
</Dale>

Kartha

-----Original Message-----
From: Dale Moberg [mailto:dmoberg@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 11:24 AM
To: Cppa (E-mail)
Subject: [ebxml-cppa] [PLEASE READ BY FRIDAY] Disentangling CPPA
Specification Approval from any IPR Position endorsement.




The current motions and mail ballots were intended, IMO, to address
the question of whether the 2.0 specification should be approved
by the TC and whether the specification should be moved forward
for possible approval by OASIS. We clearly were aiming at a June
initiation of the OASIS process. That would result in an October
vote within OASIS. To delay entering the OASIS voting process
would push the consideration of the specification to January 2003,
beyond the current lifetime of the group. It would might adversely
impact member companies hoping to release products
based on the 2.0 specification prior to 2003.

The voting is now known to also involve polling the membership on
whether they are satisfied with the current IPR disclosure statements
pertaining to the specification. Members are tacitly being asked to use
the current ballot to make some statement about the current IPR
situation, and in particular the vague language of the second IBM
statement.

I have asked the membership to consider dividing these issues.
There is nothing this TC can do with its specification to meet
objections
to language in an IPR disclosure statement. If the IPR terms are
unacceptable
in the market, the specifications will meet their fate and we will know
why that happened. If we prevent the specification from being approved,
we simply make this TC return to its work with no way to fulfill its
goal.
In such a situation, I would urge reconsideration of whether the charter
of this group can be fulfilled and whether we should spend our energies
elsewhere. I believe that this remark reveals why it is unfair to
try to exploit negative votes on specifications to try to achieve
some other extraneous goals or play a tactical role in
lobbying schemes.

I do not, however, wish to prevent members dissatisfied with
the IPR proposals from making a statement. We are therefore
considering how to place the collective consensual
stamp of approval of this technical
committee on a resolution or statement that expresses
a shared view on the current IPR statement.

I am putting the following language forth for your discussion.
Consider particularly the statement about intended retraction
of the specification from OASIS consideration if current
IPR language is not clarified.

Thanks, Dale Moberg

==============================================================

The OASIS ebXML CPPA TC membership has requested that holders of
patents that may be required for the implementation of the standard,
disclose such patents to OASIS and to the ebXML CPPA TC. One such
disclosure
has been obtained from IBM,
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ebxml-cppa/documents/ibm_ipr_statem
ent.shtml

The OASIS ebXML CPPA TC finds this disclosure to be
unclear in its intent to ask for "reciprocity," and overly restrictive
in invoking limitations to CPPA specifications by specific version
numbers.
The ebXML CPPA TC would also like clear language allowing the transfer
of rights to derivative works as found within typical open source
licensing and/or copyright frameworks.

The ebXML CPPA TC has not undertaken any patent searches
in order to identify which, or whether any,
patents may apply to its specifications. Nevertheless, it is
the intent of this TC that its specification be freely implementable
by commercial software developers, end users,
and the open source communities.

[Is this idea also to be included?]
The ebXML CPPA TC, by its approval of its
specification, does not recommend
that implementers of the OASIS CPPA
functionality accept announced procedures
or assume applicability of IPR claims, because
the ebXML CPPA TC takes no position on the validity of any
claim or any patent rights that have been or may be disclosed.

[ Is this something we endorse?]
The ebXML CPPA TC believes that the basic idea of exchanging shared
configuration information in order to deploy distributed processing
systems has a long history, and that there exists much
prior art for exchange and use of this information.

[Retraction announced]
If the current IPR statement has not been clarified sufficiently
by the October 2002 OASIS voting period, it is the intention
of this Technical Committee to withdraw its specification from
the OASIS approval process.



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC