[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors
IANAL either, but that your understanding and my understanding are complete opposites. (i have talked to our lawyers, by the way, but it was a long time ago.) i can't find the IP statements on the OASIS web site, but in my memory, the things that stick out as the most objectionable for the licenses that i've seen: - the licenses that i have seen are not sublicensable. which means that while <company a> that licenses BPEL IPR from the original 5 is licensed to use BPEL, customers of <company a's product> are not licensed, and must separately negotiate with the "BPEL 5". - <author company> grants you license to patents THEY deem necessary to implement BPEL provided you cross-license any of your patents that THEY deem necessary to implement BPEL. i don't think that the patents are made explicit in the license. they can determine them at any point in the future. these are just the 2 that stick out most. and again, i don' t have much source material to back me up at this point, so it may all be wrong. this is why i would like the ability to discuss the issues openly with the TC and not get shut down by OASIS staff, as we have been in the past. danny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:39 AM Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors Hello my understand for now is, that there is no licensing required to use the specification, to publish it and to implement according to it. This is also what is written in the Specification. However this does not mean, that companies may have patents which affect your ability to implement the specification, where you need to get a license for. This is true for most specifications which are freely available, lately. As a TC member (and most likely later as a user of the spec) there is a offer by some of the initial authors, to agree on a mutual agreement, that they will not enforce any licensing on you, if you agree on the same. This basically means, if you sign the contract, you do not need to check pending patents from them. If you dont think you are affected by patents, or if your comapny policy is to ignore them, them you do not need to sign it. This is my understanding, IANAL, and I would be happy if somebody can correct me, if I am under a basic missunderstanding. 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:firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.seeburger.de -----Original Message----- From: Howard N Smith [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:58 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com Cc: UCorda@SeeBeyond.com; firstname.lastname@example.org 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/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.