[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Proposed charter and standing rules
Hi Eve - these look great! Thanks very much. If folks think "intention" is too "MUST"-like, perhaps changing it to a "goal" would soften it a bit. I can live with either one. Rob Philpott RSA Security Inc. The Most Trusted Name in e-Security Tel: 781-515-7115 Mobile: 617-510-0893 Fax: 781-515-7020 mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@sun.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:16 PM > To: 'security-services@lists.oasis-open.org' > Subject: [security-services] Proposed charter and standing rules > > Folks-- Attached are a revised charter and a corresponding set of > standing rules. I believe I made all the requested edits to the > charter, and I have started to use the new proposed OASIS filenaming > rules for that file. I hope we can discuss these in the next meeting. > > Regarding the proposed standing rule(s) on IPR requirements, here is > what I learned in talking to the LegalXML folks and an attorney in my > company: > > - LegalXML has a specific reason for using the "in no event" (MUST) > language regarding producing RF specs. Since their outputs are used by > the public sector, particularly courts, the technologies using their > specs have to be as open as possible. > > - They see no reason for a provision not to accept non-RF contributions, > since the OASIS copyright provisions allow for the reuse of contributed > material, and since TC spec outputs are judged wrt patents regardless of > whether the patented material was included with foreknowledge or not. > > - To quote John Greacen, the LegalXML person who kindly responded to my > queries: "One other solution to the IPR issue has been suggested by one > of our TC members -- that we may choose in the future to leave some > areas of specifications open with a note that there are several > effective proprietary solutions available in this area and users of the > standard should investigate them and choose one. We could even list the > vendors in the specification. I think that approach would be consistent > with our charter provision." Such a solution would apply to us as well, > in any case where we choose an RF path. > > - My company attorney weighed in on the value of softening the wording > from "In no event..." (MUST) to something like "It is the intention..." > (SHOULD). He pointed out that a SHOULD version it has no legal teeth, > but it serves as business purpose in indicating (obviously) our intent > and direction. So he felt it's a reasonable thing to do, if that's what > we want. > > Given the above, in the attached standing rules document I have proposed > the following singular IPR standing rule: > > "It is the intention of the TC not to approve any technical > specification if it believes that the use, distribution, or > implementation of such specification would necessarily require the > unauthorized infringement of any third party rights known to the TC, and > such third party has not openly specified and agreed to provide > necessary license rights on perpetual, royalty-free, non-discriminatory > terms." > > On re-reading this, I wonder if this isn't too MUST-like... But > hopefully sending it out will give people a chance to seek input from > their own corporate attorneys etc. > > Eve > > -- > Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 > Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441 > Web Technologies and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC