RE: [wsbpel-implement] Use of contributed IPR in conducting tests ofpartial and draft specifications

[Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com>]

I continue to track this question with Siebel and have been given reason 
to expect we may hear something soon.  I will let everyone know as soon as 
I hear anything concrete.

Regards, Diane
IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
drj@us.ibm.com
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123





"Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de>
11/12/2003 08:42 PM
 
        To:     "James Bryce Clark" <jamie.clark@oasis-open.org>, 
<wsbpel-implement@lists.oasis-open.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [wsbpel-implement] Use of contributed IPR in 
conducting tests of partial and  draft specifications


i guess even non-oasis members could have claims (especially patents) 
which may need to be respected (in some countries).
 
BTW: I guess we still miss siebels statement?
 
 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd Eckenfels
Chief Architect
--
SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany
Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256
mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de - http://www.seeburger.de 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 12:46 AM
To: James Bryce Clark; wsbpel-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: drj@us.ibm.com; bellwood@us.ibm.com; karl.best@oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-implement] Use of contributed IPR in conducting tests 
of partial and draft specifications

Hi Jamie,
 
Just a point of clarification. You say below:
 
"I note that the majority of WSBPEL TC contributors already have provided 
names and contact information for licensing permission, in their postings 
to the TC's IPR notices page (www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbel/ipr.php
).   I'd assume that they would be willing to provide adequate assurances 
for testing activities they support.  I suggest that prospective test 
participants contact them, if concerned about a licensing gap for 
permission to build a test client.  At this stage, as I read it, they're 
free to provide licenses or not, and members are free to decide whether to 
participate or not.  Of course, those decisions may affect adoption of the 
work".
But that is only a part of the issue. In other words, the existing IPR 
statements only relate to the initial BPEL 1.1 submission. Any work 
contributed since the beginning of the TC's activities could be subject to 
additional IPR claims (coming not only from the original submitters but 
also from any other member of the TC). Is that correct?
 
If so, then your other statement should apply, i.e. "Members may have 
claims against the work being incorporated into a specification, and are 
encouraged to disclose them, in which case those disclosures are posted to 
the TC's IPR notices page". So they are "encouraged to disclose" but they 
don't have to. Is that correct?
So an implementation might be infringing on IPR claims above and beyond 
those currently expressed in the IPR notices page of the TC. (I am not 
saying this is good or bad, just trying to get the complete picture).
 
Thank you,
Ugo
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark [mailto:jamie.clark@oasis-open.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 8:55 AM
To: wsbpel-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: drj@us.ibm.com; bellwood@us.ibm.com; karl.best@oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel-implement] Use of contributed IPR in conducting tests of 
partial and draft specifications

    This follows up on my 10 November message to this list, and the 
conversation we had at the last wsbpel-implementation subcommittee meeting 
regarding the possible need for licenses in connection with "testbed" 
plugfests prior to a specification's approval.  Several members asked 
whether the OASIS IPR policy applies equally to, or works differently for, 
interim interoperability tests conducted as an official but informal TC 
activity.

    Please note that each OASIS member is responsible for their own 
compliance with, and interpretations of, our rules, so we cannot provide 
advice that replaces your need to consult with your own experts.  The 
definitive answers to these questions can be found only in the text of our 
posted rules.  In case it's helpful, though, here is my understanding of 
the pertinent general issues. 

    Our current policy does not distinguish between 'testbed' 
implementations and other uses of IP contributed to an OASIS Technical 
Committee.  As a result, the usual rules apply, e.g., 
    --  Members may have claims against the work being incorporated into a 
specification, and are encouraged to disclose them, in which case those 
disclosures are posted to the TC's IPR notices page.
    -- Contributors are encouraged to offer licenses permitting the use of 
those contributions, but are permitted to set their own "reasonable and 
nondiscriminatory" conditions and restrictions (which also are posted to 
that notice page).
    -- Users must evaluate the license offers that are made, and satisfy 
themselves that they have acquired sufficient permission for their planned 
implementation or derivation.  Those determinations are to be made by each 
user.

    I note that the majority of WSBPEL TC contributors already have 
provided names and contact information for licensing permission, in their 
postings to the TC's IPR notices page (
www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbel/ipr.php).   I'd assume that they would 
be willing to provide adequate assurances for testing activities they 
support.  I suggest that prospective test participants contact them, if 
concerned about a licensing gap for permission to build a test client.  At 
this stage, as I read it, they're free to provide licenses or not, and 
members are free to decide whether to participate or not.  Of course, 
those decisions may affect adoption of the work.

    OASIS TC members are free to express their opinions about whether any 
given work has sufficiently broad and available licensure to permit 
widespread implementation.  Any member may choose to adopt a position 
regarding any of our standards or drafts, or any element of them, 
including voting against it, or conditioning its support on satisfactory 
license availability.  (And it does happen;  I was involved in some of 
those issues when I was a TC participant myself, before joining the OASIS 
staff.)   OASIS' role is to provide an open forum for this, and to 
encourage communication about wider availability.  Ultimately, though, the 
"market demand" for adequately-available IPR terms comes from developers 
and users, and is expressed by their decisions to accept or reject 
conditions, and to adopt or decline to use the work. 
 
    Our industry is in transition.  Complex patent and competition issues 
affect standards development with an intensity that did not exist five 
years ago.  Purely as a  personal observation, I think we're in an 
experimental phase, and it's still too early to judge how readily 
developers and end-users will adopt standards that embed substantial 
license restrictions.  We should learn much about this in the next year. I 
can't dismiss the possibility that some continuing license conditions will 
be acceptable.  Look at SOAP, a success by anyone's measure, but the 
subject of multiple proprietary claims through most of its development. 
The positions that OASIS members take regarding what kinds of licenses are 
appropriate, or necessary, are essential input into this important, 
developing issue. 

    Regards  Jamie

~   James Bryce Clark
~   Manager Tech Stds Dev, OASIS
~   +1 978 667 5115 x 203 central office
~   +1 310 293 6739 direct