RE: [wsbpel] The sad tail of obtaining licenses for BPEL4WS 1.1mailto:eduardo.gutentag@oasis-open.org

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

Matthew,

The OASIS IPR Policy is at http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php : just draw your own conclusions.

By the way, I don't think it's a surprise to anybody that OASIS' IPR policies are different than W3C's, and that's why certain companies prefer to work in OASIS and others in W3C (even though, of course, that is not the only reason). I am not saying here that one policy is necessarily better than the other, just that they are different. (The W3C already spent an incredible amount of time a couple of years ago discussing these issues, so I have no desire to repeat those discussions here).

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Pryor [mailto:matthew_pryor@versata.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 3:37 PM
> To: Ugo Corda; 'Steve Ross-Talbot'; 'Danny van der Rijn'
> Cc: 'ws bpel tc'
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] The sad tail of obtaining licenses for BPEL4WS
> 1.1mailto:eduardo.gutentag@oasis-open.org
> 
> 
> Ugo,
> 
> You can't seriously be suggesting that companies invest all 
> this time in
> implementing a BPEL4WS/WS-BPEL engine or supporting tools 
> only to "wait &
> see" what the original authors decide to allow as far as licensing is
> concerned?
> 
> It has never been clear what the legal relationship between 
> the IPR going in
> to the TC (BPEL4WS 1.1) & the IPR coming out of the TC 
> (WS-BPEL ?) will be.
> 
> Most people involved in the earlier discussions were happy to take the
> position of "this is a technical TC, leave the business issues to the
> original authors", but clearly this approach has failed.
> 
> It is in nobody's interest to have the IPR status under such 
> a dark cloud,
> yet nothing substantial has been done about it in several months.
> 
> And before we break out the "it's all RF" chestnut again, 
> there is a big
> difference between royalty free and having a clear legal 
> right (no, lets
> make that 5 clear legal rights) to actually use the IP (regardless of
> whether or not that involves paying anyone any money).
> 
> I don't know the OASIS rule you are referring to, but it 
> sounds ludicrous to
> me. Are you saying that all people/companies that participate 
> in OASIS TCs
> do so without having any idea of the IPR treatment of the 
> resulting body of
> work? I can't imagine any business investing is such an unpredictable
> outcome.
> 
> Those who have deeply investigated this issue know that it is still a
> minefield. Continuing with the approach of waiting until the TC has
> completed the spec & then work it out is fraught in my opinion.
> 
> It is certainly possible that the original authors could make clear,
> unambiguous & easy to find licensing terms to BPEL4WS 
> available. Furthermore
> it is possible that they could state that they have no 
> intention of imposing
> any license restrictions on the output work of the BPEL TC. 
> These measures
> would at least ensure that people interested in implementing 
> BPEL as it
> comes out of the TC need only deal with OASIS.
> 
> Better still would be to have the license actually appear 
> alongside the
> spec, and have it be the case that individual license 
> agreements are not
> required at all.
> 
> Matthew
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 2 December 2003 8:40 AM
> To: Steve Ross-Talbot; Danny van der Rijn
> Cc: ws bpel tc
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] The sad tail of obtaining licenses for BPEL4WS
> 1.1mailto:eduardo.gutentag@oasis-open.org
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I agree that the IPR issue is an important one, but I don't 
> fully understand
> how clarifying it in the case of the BPEL 1.1 submission 
> would basically
> change our outlook. I would imagine that your company does not want to
> implement the original BPEL 1.1, but rather the spec that 
> comes out of this
> TC (BPEL 1.2 or whatever else it will be called). In that 
> respect, it's
> simply part of OASIS rules that we cannot have a final word on the IPR
> status of the resulting spec until the time it is finalized.
> 
> Ugo
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Ross-Talbot [mailto:steve@enigmatec.net]
> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 1:32 PM
> > To: Danny van der Rijn
> > Cc: ws bpel tc
> > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] The sad tail of obtaining licenses 
> for BPEL4WS 
> > 1.1mailto:eduardo.gutentag@oasis-open.org
> > 
> > 
> > Danny (and all members)
> > 
> > I have it on good authority that some large commercial concerns have
> > been tracking all of this. And when I say large I really do 
> > mean large.  
> > They are users (all of them) and are not impressed. In fact 
> > their take  
> > is to not use BPEL at all until this is sorted out. This of course  
> > leaves us smaller companies, who are helping to get this work 
> > ratified  
> > as a standard, in a pretty terrible position. What are we to 
> > do? Ignore  
> > BPEL and try something else? Do nothing in this space commercially  
> > until this license debacle is fixed? All the while we are 
> forced to  
> > wait because of commercial pressured those companies with bigger  
> > pockets can make headway.
> > 
> > I must say I am very unimpressed and suggest that Oasis and
> > the authors  
> > sort this out as a matter of urgency.
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Steve T
> > 
> > 
> > On 1 Dec 2003, at 17:30, Danny van der Rijn wrote:
> > 
> > > OASIS still owes us a status report on how they're doing at
> > > negotiating with
> > > the authors.  they were a no-show at our last face-to-face 
> > when that
> > > was on
> > > the agenda.  one question on my mind is Can we produce a
> > standard where
> > > licensing is in this kind of shape?
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@enigmatec.net>
> > > To: "ws bpel tc" <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > Cc: <eduardo.gutentag@oasis-open.org>;
> > <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>;
> > > <patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 8:12 AM
> > > Subject: [wsbpel] The sad tail of obtaining licenses for BPEL4WS 
> > > 1.1mailto:eduardo.gutentag@oasis-open.org
> > >
> > >
> > >> Dear all,
> > >>
> > >> A sad tail about the of licensing BPEL4WS1.1.
> > >>
> > >> As some of you may remember  the issues of licensing and license 
> > >> mechanisms were raised at the start of the TC. We were 
> all assured 
> > >> that even though there are 5 authors of the BPEL4WS1.1
> > specification -
> > >> the base for the TC -  we should not worry. It would all
> > be fine and
> > >> the authors would figure out a way to ensure that those who are 
> > >> interested would be able to obtain licenses without any real 
> > >> hinderance.
> > >>
> > >> So mid Sept2003 I embarked on license discovery. A little known
> > >> process
> > >> to obtain the 5 license agreements from the 5 authors of the  
> > >> BPEL4WS1.1
> > >> specification.
> > >>
> > >> On the web I managed to get licenses from Microsoft
> > (thanks) and BEA
> > >> (thanks). And within a month from SAP (thanks to them also) too.
> > >>
> > >> IBM and Siebel had no web available licensing (as far as I could
> > >> tell).
> > >> I sent in a request to IBM late October, having waited 
> > passively for
> > >> some information about the licenses from the TC, and
> > (several people
> > >> and emails later) I am still waiting for a license from IBM. The
> > >> latest
> > >> news, despite the fact that I have an outstanding email 
> > into IBM, is
> > >> that a license agreement from them is on the Oasis website
> > (dated June
> > >> 2003!). Why was this not pointed out in October you may
> > ask? A case of
> > >> the X-files and standards you may think.
> > >>
> > >> With Siebel the plot thickens. Finally I got to someone (19th
> > >> November)
> > >> who seemed to know about the license issues. But ... and I 
> > know this
> > >> sounds like I made it up .... I finally get a response that says:
> > >>
> > >> "I should have pointed you to Oasis rather than Diane
> > Jordan at IBM."
> > >>
> > >> Which brings me all the way back to the original email I
> > sent to Diane
> > >> late in October. Now I feel like Bill Murray in "Ground Hog Day".
> > >>
> > >> It is a sad tail of how licenses and standards do not mix.
> > >>
> > >> I am now at a loss as to how to proceed. Seems like we 
> now have a 
> > >> deadlock. The TC chairs thinking it is the authors
> > responsibility and
> > >> at least one of the authors thinking it is Oasis's 
> responsibility.
> > >>
> > >> If anyone our there has actually succeeded in getting 
> all 5 license 
> > >> agreements could they share the secret of their success
> > with the group
> > >> so that we may all contribute on an equal footing.
> > >>
> > >> As to what I think should be done as a minimum ... it is
> > simple. Oasis
> > >> should own the contact points for such license 
> agreements and the 
> > >> authors should sign-up to ensuring that this sort of 
> information is 
> > >> sorted out *before* they start a TC so that we can play 
> on a level 
> > >> playing field.
> > >>
> > >> Best regards
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Steve Ross-Talbot
> > >> Chief Scientist Enigmatec Corp.
> > >>
> > >> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal
> > privilege.
> > >> If you
> > > are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or
> > disclose its
> > > content
> > > but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately.
> > Whilst we run
> > > antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable
> > for any
> > > loss or
> > > damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus
> > software.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> > the roster
> > >> of
> > > the OASIS TC), go to 
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/
> > > leave_workgroup.php.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> > the roster
> > > of the OASIS TC), go to
> > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/ 
> > > leave_workgroup.php.
> > >
> > > This email is confidential and may be protected by legal
> > privilege. If
> > > you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or
> > disclose
> > > its content but  delete the email and contact the sender
> > immediately.
> > > Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not
> > > liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to 
> > run their
> > > own antivirus software.
> > >
> > 
> > This email is confidential and may be protected by legal
> > privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,  please do 
> > not copy or disclose its content but  delete the email and 
> > contact the sender immediately. Whilst we run antivirus 
> > software on all internet emails we are not liable for any 
> > loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their own 
> > antivirus software.
> > 
> > 
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> > the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le
> ave_workgroup.php.
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the
> OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le
ave_workgroup.
php.