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

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

- 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

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.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eckenfels. Bernd" <B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de>
To: <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 1:39 AM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors


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:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de - http://www.seeburger.de

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard N Smith [mailto:howard.smith@ontology.org]
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 4:58 PM
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org; jevdemon@microsoft.com
Cc: UCorda@SeeBeyond.com; steve@enigmatec.net
Subject: [wsbpel] Licensing lssues for Small Vendors


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

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

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
OASIS TC), go to

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