[rights-requirements] RE: need clarification of OASIS IP policies

["Karl F. Best" <karl.best@oasis-open.org>]

Bob:

Thanks for coming to me to get clarification. I've heard from various
sources that this discussion continues in the TC, and I think that
everyone would agree that the TC's time is better spent working on the
technical issues than on IP issues.

> Content Guard contributed XrML as a starting point, and at
> the same time disclosed that it was governed by several
> patents, but also stated its intent to license the patents
> under RAND terms (not yet spelled out).  No one doubts that
> Content Guard has complied with the OASIS procedures for IP
> disclosure.

OK.

> The dispute is whether this disclosure binds the TC in any
> way in determining requirements for an OASIS Rights Expression
> Language.

I don't see how the ContentGuard contribution can be considered as
anything more than just a contribution. The TC's acceptance of the
contribution is nothing more than that. The IP and licensing terms
associated with the contribution must be identified, which has been
done, but those apply only to that contribution. It is up to the TC
(i.e. majority vote) to accept the contribution and to decide what to
do with it. The TC could decide to base their future work on that
contribution; they could just as well decide to use it just as a
reference piece or even to ignore it altogether. Regardless what the
TC decides about the contribution the IP and licensing associated with
that contribution apply only to *that* contribution and not to the
work of the TC as a whole. The TC could also accept another
contribution that is RF.

> Some people assume that this contribution and disclosure
> implies that any work product of the TC is bound by Content
> Guard's intent, while other people have said that nothing
> prevents the TC from issuing a spec that is implementable on
> a royalty-free basis.

I agree with the later. The work of the TC is covered by the free-use
OASIS copyright; only that portion of the TC's work that is the
contribution would be covered by the contribution's IP.

> Clearly the TC can't tell Content Guard what terms it must
> offer, ...

Obviously. The contribution belongs to ContentGuard and they can set
their own terms for its use. They have complied with the OASIS IPR
Policy in that they have identified the terms up front.

> ... but is the TC at liberty to decide what kind of terms it
> wants its spec to have and to see if Content Guard will
> accommodate them?

In accordance with OASIS' philosophy of member-driven technical
activities, the TC is governed by the majority of its members --
within the bounds of the normative OASIS TC Process and IPR Policy, of
course. The TC could ask ContentGuard to change the terms of its
contribution. The TC could change its mind and reject the contribution
on the basis of the IP. The TC could complete the spec, including the
ContentGuard contribution, and have a spec that is part RF (the OASIS
part) and part RAND (the ContentGuard part) and leave it up to the
implementors to decide how they will handle it. The TC could split
itself in two so that we have two TCs working on digital rights, one
RAND and the other RF. All of the above is possible.

Note also that the completion and approval of the specification by the
TC is just the first step. Approval by OASIS members for the Committee
Specification to become an OASIS Standard requires that 10% of the
membership (which is currently at about 250 member orgs) vote to
approve the spec, and no more than 10% to vote against. The OASIS
membership is going to have to be happy with the result before we can
put the OASIS name on anything.


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