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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

rights message

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

Subject: Re: [rights] OASIS Rights Language TC...Questions

Regarding the questions I submitted on Saturday, some were answered yesterday,
some weren't.

Also, I have added a sixth question, re open source implementations, at the

See below:

> 1. What is the precise ISO "fast-track" liason status
> of this TC? Is it direct, or is it due somehow to XrML's
> adoption by MPEG --- which of course is ISO?

ANSWERED: RLTC does not currently have ISO fast-track liason status, although
this could be pursued; currently there are three OASIS activities (esp. ebXML)
that have this status.

> 2. What is the expected relationship of this effort to
> other fora, including MPEG, OeBF, WAP, 3GPP and <indecs>2-RDD?
> Will OASIS be the penultimate forum in which XrML is put in
> play, or will there be others?

ANSWERED: It is the *intention* that RLTC will be responsible for the RL "core,"
and other activities, as required, may adopt appropriate extensions, following
an extensions process and model established by RLTC.

Note that this new RL governance model must be create (action for Brad & Peter)
and proposed to MPEG. Currently, MPEG is assuming a self-governance model for
RL, based upon their requirements. They must "buy in" to the RLTC-based core +
exntesions model.

> Specifically, what fora have adopted XrML?

ANSWERED: MPEG-21. But, as noted above, it was not the RLTC-centric model that
they adopted...

> Is their adoption XrML put at risk by the possibility
> that the OASIS TC may *change* XrML, in the course of
> our authoring effort?

ANSWERED: There must be an un-ambiguous versioning process that helps associate
versions of domain-specific extensions, as created and adopted by various other
fora (e.g. MPEG), which versions of the core.

The issue of to what degree the core development should be influenced or
constrained by the demands of current adopters was a matter of debate...

> ...Also, what fora have rejected XrML? Why?


> 3. ContentGuard has "turned over" XrML to the OASIS process.
> HP and other participants expect this to be a concensus-driven,
> open authoring environment. What does ContentGuard envision
> their short-term and long-term relationship to the work product
> of this group to be? In other words, what is the difference
> between ContentGuard "product" and this group's work product?
> Does ContentGuard claim any special "veto" power over perturbations
> to the current, "core" XrML spec?

Partially answered: ContentGuard claims no "veto power" to the workings of the
group, other than their voting representation on the TC (multiple CG members,
multiple votes).

Not clear was if, and/or under what conditions, there will be a distinction
between ContentGuard XrML and RLTC-RL...

> 4. What is ContentGuard's view its long-term claim to IP in the
> work product of this group?

ANSWERED: In the form of CG's patent cover statement

> ...ContentGuard has made a substantial contribution to this
> activity by submitting XrML; to my knowledge there have been
> no other submissions, direct or through "sponsors."  But our
> expectation is that, moving forward, this group may well produce
> new innovations. Who owns them? Plus, other parties may make
> contributions that have their own IP claims, suggesting
> a "licensing pool."

ANSWERED: CG stated that the OASIS IPR policies, as they appear on the OASIS web
and as handed out in the meeting, hold. This means e.g. that
"specification-related documents" (including RLTC-modified versions of the XrML
2.1 spec) will come under the copyright of OASIS. CG retains rights to any IP
that reads on their various patents.

> There have been public statements by ContentGuard officials
> suggesting that their patents cover "all" rights expression
> languages; should we interpret this to mean that ContentGuard
> would consider our work product to fall under this as
> well --- regardless of our contributions?

NOT ANSWERED (at least not specifically)

> 5. What is the full extent of the expected licensing terms?
> For example, will adopters of the OASIS standard be required
> to display the XrML and/or ContentGuard logo? Will adopters
> be required to use a particular code set or tool kit, from
> a particular vendor?

NOT ANSWERED: This question was raised, and discussed to understand the
question, but ultimately was not answered.

Here's another question:

6. What is ContentGuard's position of open source (e.g. reference)
implementations of the anticipated RLTC-prodiced specification?


| John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
| Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
| PO Box 1158, Norwich, Vermont USA 05055
| 802-649-1683 (vox) 802-371-9796 (cell) 802-649-1695 (fax)
| john_erickson@hpl.hp.com         AIM/YIM/MSN: olyerickson

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC