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] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors


Thanks for this.

The issue is complex for most, and, quite unnecessary. For someone with the
capability and intellect of Steve to write on this matter must mean there
are issues underneat this that have not been brought to light. This is why
BPMI.org took the position it did in respect of BPML from the outset
and hence we see good BPML products today being used in practice.
For the life of me I don't understand this licence thing. Perhaps Diane
and John can answer on behalf of the BPEL authors, or at least, those
that put their name on it.


At 04:34 PM 12/2/2003 -0500, David RR Webber wrote:
>Anticipating that you will not get any direct answers to the question -
>brainstorm on some possible rationale.
>Patents, paranoia, and patents, oh yes and patents.
>The possibility that some submarine patent may be granted by the inept
>PTO process that then causes the standard to be an infringement thereof.
>Then the paranoia of corporate lawyers and patent lawyers that just dictates
>they stipulate that anything patentable should be, afterall that's a
>for them - first they cannot be sued for not applying for IP, second its
>work for them managing said portfolios, and third they do not have to
>answer emails relating to this topic on the grounds that its under IP -
>However the way out of this empasse it would seem is for OASIS to accept
>donations of IP.  However the track record so far here has been a bit
>I would recommend that all five companies involved in the RF license
>donate their IP to OASIS for use in defending possible attacks on users of
>the standard.  This appears to be a win-win-win-win for same - since now
>they can garner kudos instead of suspicion from their actions - and in the
>of an extremely unlikely attack occuring - then everyone can contribute to
>the defense fund.  A further win is this resolves the current RF debate
>OASIS - since companies contributing IP to a standard would expect to
>donate that IP to OASIS and have them then defend the standard as
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Howard N Smith" <howard.smith@ontology.org>
>To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>; <jevdemon@microsoft.com>
>Cc: <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>; <steve@enigmatec.net>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 10:58 AM
>Subject: [wsbpel] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors
>> John,
>> Can any BPEL primary author on this list give any reason why licenses are
>required and what possible purpose can
>> they have in the development of a standard?
>> Steve R-T wrote:
>> >like many small companies and some big ones too we are interested in
>getting product out based on BPEL4WS1.1.
>> >Let's call it a teaser for the real thing. We rely, as a smaller company,
>on being fleet of foot. Alas the problems with
>> >licensing BPEL4WS1.1 so that we are in the clear (and when you are small
>this is so very important) reduce our ability
>> >to be fleet of foot. Our customers, having been aware of the licensing
>problems in the TC, are unwilling to try the stuff
>> >unless we shoulder the license burden. Given we cannot even get this
>sorted out it difficult to build a business around
>> >BPEL until the mess is cleared up. All very depressing ....
>> While you were quick to respond John, I think the point is missed. I
>concur with Steve. Firstly, there should be no need
>> for licenses to do with BPEL if the intention was to create a standard. I
>never did understand the reason why such
>> licenses were wrapped around the work of this group. Giving that control
>to the BPEL authors was not in the best
>> interests of OASIS or the members.
>> BPMI took the view that such things are unnecessary, and the folks who
>donated ipr to BPMI.org as part of the
>> development of BPML never did that, nor had no need to. After all, the
>point of standards is that vendors compete
>> on the basis of implementating them, not creating them. Imagine if the
>relational model when it was proposed
>> had needed licenses!
>> As a next best step, if OASIS insists on licenses for reasons unknown, why
>not let OASIS issue it. It is silly to have
>> small vendors have to waste valuable development time and resources
>chasing licenses from big gorilla vendors.
>> I just don't get it. I see no reason why one would be required, and I
>think several of our members at BPMI.org, and some
>> here, are naturally suspicious about the reasons for such licenses. I
>think this is the point under Steve's note, which is
>> only natural. Just getting further clarification from BPEL authors like
>Siebel misses the point John.
>> And of course, the underlying model of the pi math behind this innovation,
>really cannot be subject to license in any case.
>> I don't think prof Milner would appreciate that. Sorry to be flippant, but
>when these sillynesses arise, sometimes
>> being flippant is necessary to hammer the point home.
>> Howard Smith
>> co-chair BPMI.org
>> ---
>> New Book - Business Process Management: The Third Wave
>> www.bpm3.com
>> Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org
>> cell +44 7711 594 494 (operates worldwide, dial UK)
>> office +44 20 8660 1963
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
>the OASIS TC), go to


New Book - Business Process Management: The Third Wave

Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org
cell +44 7711 594 494 (operates worldwide, dial UK)
office +44 20 8660 1963 

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