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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

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


Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion


Hi Don,

Thanks for the cleanup. I shouldn't have been so lazy as to insert items
numbered "0a," although I'm sure that everybody got the idea. The below
is certainly clearer, though.

Thanks again,
Paul

Paul Lipton
Technology Strategist, Office of the CTO
Computer Associates
P: +1 908 874-9479
F: +1 908 874-9178
E: paul.lipton@ca.com
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Donald Steiner [mailto:donald.steiner@webv2.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 8:34 PM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion


I've simplified Paul's modifications somewhat and have revised the
numbering to make it more logical (IMHO:-).

Also, I think it may be unreasonable to expect that the submitters have
the licensing terms available so soon, so I loosened the time
constraint. If the membership insists on having the terms by the F2F,
then we can easily ammend the motion by taking out the word
"preferrably" in 1.C. I think it's probably worthwhile for the BoF to
meet at the F2F no matter what, even if for just a short time to discuss
next steps.

Best,

 - Donald


"The TC recommends creation of a Birds of a Feather group (BoF) to
examine licensing issues related to the BPEL4WS v1.1 specification as
submitted at the first meeting and implementations thereof. To aid in
this process:

1) The TC chairs shall request the following from the 5 original
submitters:
   A) To drop all royalty and license restrictions.
   B) In lieu of A) to offer a single, open license representing their
common interests.
   C) To make further details of the licensing terms available to the TC
membership as soon as possible, preferrably before the next face-to-face
meeting.
2) The BoF shall be open to the TC membership.
3) The BoF shall consider comments from the TC membership, which shall
be submitted by email or in person.
4) When practical and possible, the legal representatives of the
submitting members should be made available to discuss the observations
and/or recommendations of the BoF.
5) The BoF group shall meet at the next face-to-face meeting."



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lipton, Paul C [mailto:Paul.Lipton@ca.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 8:30 PM
> To: Ben Bloch; Cummins, Fred A; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> As the person who originally proposed this motion, I,
> personally, would be comfortable with the following 
> modification of Donald Steiner's fine revision incorporating 
> two more items. First, that we ask the five original 
> submitters if they will consider dropping the licensing and 
> royalty restrictions. They will probably say no, but I agree 
> with Steve that this question should be formally asked and 
> answered. Let them put their decision on the record. I call 
> this step 0 below. 
> 
> Second, which I call step 0a, requests that the five original
> submitters create a uniform, single license that covers all 
> of their rights along with an open, well-defined mechanism 
> for obtaining this license. At least, this will simplify and 
> expedite the process for implementers, and keep things nice 
> and clean. 
> 
> That said, please find the below version:
> 
> "The TC recommends creation of a Birds of a Feather group
> (BoF) to examine licensing issues related to the BPEL4WS v1.1 
> specification as submitted at the first meeting and 
> implementations thereof. To aid in this process:
> 
> 0) TC chairs will request that the 5 original submitters
> consider dropping royalty and license restrictions.
> 0a)  TC chairs will request, if response from step 0 is 
> negative, that the five original submitters present a single, 
> open license representing their common interests to the TC members.
> 1) TC chairs will request details of the current licensing 
> terms from the 5 original submitting members, which should be 
> made available to the TC membership before the next 
> face-to-face meeting.
> 2) The BoF shall be open to the TC membership.
> 3) The BoF shall consider comments from the TC membership, 
> which shall be submitted by email or in person.
> 4) When practical and possible, the legal representatives of 
> the submitting members should be made available to discuss 
> the observations and/or recommendations of the BoF.
> 5) The BoF group shall meet at the next face-to-face meeting."
> 
> Thanks,
> Paul
> 
> Paul Lipton
> Technology Strategist, Office of the CTO
> Computer Associates
> P: +1 908 874-9479
> F: +1 908 874-9178
> E: paul.lipton@ca.com
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Bloch [mailto:ben_b54@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 3:24 PM
> To: Cummins, Fred A; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
> 
> This is good advice but, although the TC is not a legal
> forum, it can nonetheless faciliate the communication between 
> TC members and the original submitters, which makes it 
> easier/more efficient for everyone, including I would think 
> the submitters themselves.
> 
> So the motion should be passed and, hopefully, the vendors
> will comply by the F2F. Obviously we can't make them but we 
> can request their positions, whatever they are, be clarified 
> at this time, to then give the TC a basis for any further 
> discussion and actions, if any.  Until these licenses - or 
> declared lack thereof - are made available to the TC or to 
> the web (eg Microsoft's WS-Security license
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/docs/wss_license.asp) , 
> however, any further discussions on this topic could, in my 
> opinion, be quite unproductive.
> 
> 
> Ben
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>
> To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Cc: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 2:28 PM
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Proposed Motion
> 
> 
> > I suggest that those who have a real concern about the
> > IP rights and licensing pursue this with their attorneys
> rather than
> > create a special committee and more discussion. I had a discussion
> > with an attorney, and I believe there are legitimate concerns.
> >
> > Here is my understanding (not a legal opinion):
> >
> > The specification has been submitted for use as is.  There does not
> > appear to be a waiver of copyright for use of portions of the 
> > specification in a new specification to be developed by the 
> technical
> > committee.
> >
> > The royalty free licenses are for patents that would apply to 
> > implementations of the proposed specification, not a
> specification
> > that might evolve from this specification. Consequently,
> there is not
> > necessarily any free license for patents relevant to the final
> > specification.
> >
> > The OASIS policy seems to be quite liberal and does not ensure that
> > specifications adopted by OASIS are free of IP rights of those who 
> > contribute, only that there is notice of relevant IP of 
> participating
> > companies that individual representatives are aware of.  Of course,
> > there is always the possiblity that a specification will 
> infringe on
> > the IP rights of non-participants.
> >
> > Fred Cummins
> > EDS
> >
> > [...]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org




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