[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors
Harvey, I love that term! It should be explicitly mentioned in the text of the policy ... Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Harvey Reed [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 8:01 AM > To: 'Howard N Smith'; email@example.com > Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; Ugo Corda; > 'David RR Webber' > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors > > > Howard, Steve, et al, > > This is similar to a policy of "mutual assured destruction", > whereby the > initial authors hold IP and promise not to sue if others > promise the same. > > ++Harvey > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Howard N Smith [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 5:13 AM > To: David RR Webber > Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; > UCorda@SeeBeyond.com; email@example.com > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors > > David, > > 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. > > Howard > > At 04:34 PM 12/2/2003 -0500, David RR Webber wrote: > >Howard, > > > >Anticipating that you will not get any direct answers to the > question - > >let's > >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 > >win-win-win > >for them - first they cannot be sued for not applying for > IP, second its > >more > >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 - > >PERFECT! > > > >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 > >gloomy. > > > >I would recommend that all five companies involved in the RF license > >situation > >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 > >event > >of an extremely unlikely attack occuring - then everyone can > contribute to > >the defense fund. A further win is this resolves the > current RF debate > >within > >OASIS - since companies contributing IP to a standard would expect to > >donate that IP to OASIS and have them then defend the standard as > >necessary. > > > >DW. > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Howard N Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > >To: <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org> > >Cc: <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>; <email@example.com> > >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 > >http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/l eave_workgroup .php. >> >> --- 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 http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup. php.