[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oasis-charter-discuss] MOX Charter comments - Licensing
Thanks for bringing up these issues, Bill, To be honest, I have not followed this discussion as closely as I should have, so let me make it clear that my own participation hinges upon the adoption of a 'Royalty Free' (RF) IPR policy, of which I prefer RF on RAND. Best Regards, Rex At 10:34 PM -0400 9/23/08, William Cox wrote: >I would like to make it clear that RAND is a perfectly acceptable >IPR policy under OASIS rules (and that I have no objection to RAND >terms if the IPR holders want to use them). My concerns are > >(1) The draft charter is confusing (as called out in my earlier, >on-time email) around contributions and evaluations; I don't recall >seeing such an open call in RAND proposals; > >(2) The issue of acceptance and licensing are, in my experience, >closely related. Limiting adoptions tends to lead toward lowered >acceptance, and has on occasion led to competing specifications and >loss of commonality in the technology area. > >bill cox > >William Cox wrote: >>The work is interesting and broadly applicable; surely a goal of >>the proposers is to have it broadly used? >> >>But there's a confusing combination of RAND licensing terms and the >>repeated statement "Other contributions will be accepted for >>consideration without any prejudice or restrictions and evaluated >>based on technical merit insofar as they conform to this charter." >>([Sections (1)(b) and (1)(c)] >> >>On the one hand, the output will be on RAND terms (which, BTW, >>encompasses RF with RAND terms - just with zero cost). On the >>other, you call for contributions, say they will be "accepted for >>consideration" - which seems vague - , and "evaluated". But I don't >>see "accepted". And if you "accept" such contributions, that >>certainly will affect the RAND terms. >> >>Unless, of course, those in at the beginning plan to accept gratis >>contributions from others that will then be licensed back to them. >> >>This does not match most familiar business models -- are you >>soliciting "free donations"? Will you then license them back at a >>fee? Who would want to participate? >> >>Most confusing. This both limits effective contributions (as "other >>contributions" have no clear path to participating in the licensing >>discussing), and limits adoption (as competing specs will no doubt >>appear if the licensing terms are at all burdensome). >> >>(1)(f) says that the anticipated audience/users are "SOA vendors". >>Again, the licensing appears to make it difficult for open source >>projects to use the planned output of the TC. >> >>Even with RF terms there can issues of distribution, where a >>burdensome license may hinder typical packaging and redistribution, >>e.g., where an RF license requires individual customers to access >>and accept a license before using a product distribution from a >>third party. But we don't know the intended (or even projected) >>RAND terms. >> >>In short, the combination of intended use, likely audience, and IPR >>terms is problematic, and doesn't make sense to me in its current >>form. This needs to be addressed in the Charter. >> >> >>bill cox > >-- > >William Cox >wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com >+1 862 485 3696 mobile >+1 908 277 3460 fax > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-898-0670
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]