[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [chairs] Is "Defensive RF" the answer to the OASIS IPR impasse?
> So I'm not sure that the new IPR is less "messy" than the old!? It's > more perscribing - but that appears to be in a negative way that does > not solve the issues we are seeing here. If a TC wants to simplify > this all by chartering its work as specifically RF-based as a term of > participatation and acceptance of contributions - right now we cannot. David, the above statement indicates to me that you have not really read the new IPR policy. I would really like to encourage you to do so, since if you did you would discover that by contributing to or participating in, for instance, an RF on Limited Terms TC, you would be incurring legally binding obligations to license whatever needs to be licensed on a strictly RF basis. Thus, your assertion that "If a TC wants to simplify this all by chartering its work as specifically RF-based as a term of participatation and acceptance of contributions" is contrary to fact; all the TC has to do is to declare *in its charter* that it's an RF mode based TC. That triggers all the necessary obligations that apply to contributors and participants; and it also triggers the character of the obligation that those who send comments to that TC must agree to abide by in order for the comments to actually make it to the comments list, thus preventing the contamination of an RF TC, for instance, with RAND contributions. Please do read the policy; it can be found at http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php Thanks! On 05/08/2006 11:49 AM, David RR Webber (XML) wrote: > Gabe, > > I agree that OASIS can do more here. > > Right now we're caught in no-mans-land as TC chairs - where we are being > asked to sign-on to IPR policies that appear to not be in-line with the > needs of our work and members vision, while at the same time being > hand-cuffed in not being able to mitigate that by clarifications at the > TC level to participants. > > If we had tools like sample IPR contribution agreement templates (such > as defensive RF, RF) that we can present to participants up front - then > as you rightly note - the likelihood is that their respective legal > departments will apply something close to that. Instead when you throw > it open - you end up with legal imposing something that is at odds with > the spirit and mission because their frame of reference is narrowed just > to that company view. > > So I'm not sure that the new IPR is less "messy" than the old!? It's > more perscribing - but that appears to be in a negative way that does > not solve the issues we are seeing here. If a TC wants to simplify > this all by chartering its work as specifically RF-based as a term of > participatation and acceptance of contributions - right now we cannot. > Thanks, DW > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [chairs] Is "Defensive RF" the answer to the OASIS IPR > impasse? > From: "Wachob, Gabe" <email@example.com> > Date: Mon, May 08, 2006 2:22 pm > To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Chairs OASIS" > <email@example.com> > Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > <email@example.com> > > David- > Actually, with regards to SAML, I believe there are two caveats > to your comments: > a) it's the old IPR rules, so things are a bit messier than the new IPR > rules and > > b) Fidelity has committed to a RANDZ license - but requires licensees to > *individually* negotiate such licenses with them. > > The real issue, as I see it, is item b) - that many people using > SAML probably do not realize that they must execute such a license with > Fidelity because Fidelity has not presented a unilateral (e.g. > click-through) license or a covenant not to sue (as have several other > parties). I do believe that Fidelity is not trying to make things > difficult - I'm guessing they would happily do whatever was best for > SAML but are not aware that this is really an issue or haven't been able > to come up with something like the convenant not to sue or a unilateral > license for internal policy reasons. > > My point is that OASIS has influence here and can help to shape > licensing practice w/r/t OASIS specs that have potential patent > encumberances. For many implementers, these licensing details are "below > the radar". For organizations that are more sensitive to IPR issues (and > may have past experience being on the wrong end of patent litigation, > because of unclear or sloppy IPR license management or for other > reasons), these details are extremely important. > > I realize that many people may find these issues to be > "nitpicking" - and actually I think that's a compliment to the new OASIS > IPR rules that we actually are getting down to the "mechanics" of the > licensing process rather than huge substantive issues. But they are > important and I think OASIS can do the world some benefit by taking > leadership here and nudging patent holders to a more uniform and > complete licensing process... > > -Gabe > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > > Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 7:58 AM > > To: Chairs OASIS > > Cc: email@example.com; > > firstname.lastname@example.org > > Subject: [chairs] Is "Defensive RF" the answer to the OASIS > > IPR impasse? > > > > Following on from the past weeks discussion and notes around the > > experience of the use of SAML. It seems clear that large user > > corporations and governments have an aversion to any standard > that has > > licensing requirement from individual companies that they must > action. > > > > This clearly limits any OASIS standard adoption where there > > are specific > > licensing needed. > > > > Whereas the current OASIS IPR choices really do not make this > > clear - in > > fact the opposite - the door appears to be open where future > > impediments > > may be added at an unknown time by participating contributors. > > > > We heard again the argument that - "why work on a standard if then it > > has to be scrapped because of some IPR that later arises?" > > > > Conversely one could say that in the case of things like SAML > > where any > > non-RF licensing will effectively scrap the use anyway - then we have > > to be pragmatic and say we need an IPR policy where adopters know > that > > - contributors to the OASIS work do so solely on the basis of RF only > > and that is enshrined in the charter and modus operandi of the TC > that > > their participation is on that basis alone. > > > > Hence - the TC would only accept work on the basis of RF, and beyond > > that if IPR issues arise those will either require an RF > agreement, or > > the TC work will be changed to avoid that IPR and not include it. > > > > Having that level of clear statement in the IPR-mode options > > is what we > > appear to be missing today - as evidenced by the experience with > SAML. > > > > Cordially, DW > > > > > -- Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: eduardo.gutentag@Sun.COM Technology Director | Phone: +1 510 550 4616 (internal x31442) Corporate Standards | Sun Microsystems Inc. W3C AC Rep / W3C AB / OASIS BoD