[wss] Re: Please add "WSS IPR statement clarification" to the Dec11-12 F2F agenda

[Frank Siebenlist <franks@mcs.anl.gov>]

Hi Kelvin,

Thanks for the reply - it makes the issues more clear.

However, please add "WSS IPR statement clarification" to the agenda.

I promise that it will be short 10-15 min, and I agree that no T&Cs should be discussed. It is merely meant to briefly discuss the 
consequences of your attached statement, the procedure and options with all the TC members that have shown an interest in the last 5 
weeks. It's probably no surprise that our oganization is not the only one for whom the clarification is important. I'm sure you 
agree that leaving questions and misunderstanding could be detrimental to the process, which I believe is in nobody's interest. Your 
attached set of points is a good step towards that goal.

It would probably be best to add it towards the beginning such that we can proceed quickly with the more technical and fun stuff.

As far as the contact names to get in touch with the lawyers of each of the three submitters is concerned, please send them my way 
and we will follow up asap.
You may want to consider sending these names to the list or add them to the IPR statement, because there may be many more that want 
and need answers to the exact same questions that I posed.

Thanks, Frank.


Kelvin Lawrence wrote:
> 
> Hello Frank,
> 
> I am reluctant to add an IPR discussion to the agenda. I will attempt to 
> explain why.  When the TC was formed and met for the first time in 
> September, as you will recall,  we had very lengthy discussions about 
> the charter and the IPR around the submissions was also discussed  and 
> these discussions were recorded in the minutes. There are some basic 
> things that I feel I need to point out or at least revisit here.
> 
> 1. OASIS has a very clearly defined IPR policy which is published on 
> their web site. In accordance with that policy the submitters of the 
> original WS-Security spec provided the IPR statement that is currently 
> posted to the WSS TC web page. In fact the statement provides a lot more 
> information than is required by the OASIS IPR policy for submission of 
> documents.
> 
> 2. Questions about that IPR statement of a legal nature need to be 
> handled by those trained to do so, namely lawyers. For the detailed 
> questions that you have I think you first of all need to consult with 
> your own legal counsel (which I believe you may have already done). If 
> after having done that questions remain, then we need to get the 
> respective lawyers connected so that they can discuss any issues. The 
> members of the TC (myself included) are not qualified or trained to 
> interpret legal documents and therefore we should not attempt to do so 
> during a TC meeting.
> 
> 3. The WSS TC conforms to the OASIS IP rules.  If you have specific 
> questions about those rules you need to contact OASIS directly.
> 
> 4. If we have this item on the agenda we will have a group of non 
> lawyers debating legal terms which they (a) did not author, and (b) are 
> not qualified to interpret and you will not get an answer that you can 
> rely upon. I know for a fact that the IBM folks that attend the TC 
> meeting will not be able to participate in any such discussions as they 
> are not qualified to do so. I suspect that this is also true for the 
> other companies' representatives to the TC.
> 
> I therefore, suggest we try as efficiently as we can to connect your 
> lawyer(s) with those of each of the companies that made the IPR 
> statement that you are referring to. Would you like me to try and get 
> you the contact names in each of the companies ?
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Kelvin
> 
> 
> 
> *Frank Siebenlist <franks@mcs.anl.gov>*
> 
> 12/05/2002 01:11 PM
> 
> To
> Kelvin Lawrence/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Chris Kaler <ckaler@microsoft.com>
> cc
> wss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject
> Please add "WSS IPR statement clarification" to the Dec 11-12 F2F agenda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you please add "WSS IPR statement clarification" to the agenda?
> 
> It has been 4-5 weeks since I asked the submitters for clarification of 
> some of the T&Cs in their WSS IPR statement.
> ("http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wss/200211/msg00067.html";)
> 
> I understand that in general, lawyers are unable to give quick answers, 
> but I was hoping to at least get an update on the status of
> the answers to my questions...
> 
>  From the private communications that I received, I have the feeling 
> that a number of organizations and companies are somewhat
> uncomfortable to contribute to the WSS effort while the IPR statement 
> isn't clear.
> 
> We would already be satisfied if we could we get an informal, oral 
> statement in layman's terms about the "intent" of the IPR
> statement at the F2F meeting.
> 
> Thanks, Frank.
> 
> -- 
> Frank Siebenlist              franks@mcs.anl.gov
> The Globus Project - Argonne National Laboratory
> 
> 

-- 
Frank Siebenlist              franks@mcs.anl.gov
The Globus Project - Argonne National Laboratory