Addressing IPR confusion

["Wachob, Gabe" <gwachob@visa.com>]

[Apologies in advance for cross posting, but this seems to be a cross
cutting concern and I'm not sure that previous emails on this topic have
reached the right audiences]

The confusion over the licensing terms for the XRI TC (as shown in
emails attached below) is now becoming a substantive issue. I believe
this is part of a larger problem with OASIS's handling of RF and Open
Source-compatible licensing. 

Dan Connolly, member of the W3C Technical Architecture Group has said in
email [1] that he won't read the XRI Specifications because of "patent
concerns". I can understand his position given the *lack* of mention of
patent licensing terms in the XRI specifications and the TC web site.
There is no clear, consistent place for this information to be
communicated on TC web pages or specifications. The only mention of
patent licensing in our TC is our charter which says that everything we
produce SHALL be (rather than IS) licensed RF - and this language is
buried in the middle of the charter. One has to slog through the OASIS
IPR rules to understand exactly how this nets out to an RF license for
the work actually produced. 

I suggested in a previous email to the chairs list [2] that TCs be able
to mark their specifications as "Open Source Compatible". The idea was
to indicate that the licensing for a TC's work was not only RF, but that
the specific licensing terms wouldn't run cause problems for Open
Source-licensed implementations. 

We are now beginning to see the results of the lack of a clear and
forceful statement of direction from the OASIS management on supporting
RF and Open Source compatible efforts. I would like to see the board:

1) Adopt or consider something similar to the proposal described in [2].

2) Treat licensing terms as primary part of the description of a TC and
its work products. Given our litigious environment, licensing is a major
issue these days, even for potential evaluators, let alone adopters.
Licensing terms should be noted everywhere a specification is mentioned.


3) On the OASIS website, I would like to see the left-hand menu of
committees also be broken down by their licensing mode (Restricted RF,
Unrestricted RF, RAND non-RF). And if the idea of tagging a TC as "open
source compatible" is adopted, I'd like to be able to have a list of
those TC's and specifications that are so marked. I believe we need to
encourage RF-mode licensing and emphasizing the distinction in licensing
modes is a simple and effective way to do this. 

I believe transparent and straightforward communication of licensing
terms for TCs and their output are critical for the continued vitality
and relevance of OASIS. I look forward to working with the OASIS board
and OASIS staff in this area.

	-Gabe

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Apr/0076.html
[2] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/chairs/200502/msg00009.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary McRae [mailto:mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org] 
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 11:15 AM
> To: 'Drummond Reed'
> Cc: Wachob, Gabe; marc.lemaitre@cordance.net; 'James Bryce 
> Clark'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [xri] XRI TC IPR Page Update
> 
> Thanks Drummond, 
> 
>   Jamie tracks the IPR stuff; I'm not sure how we handle name 
> changes/URL changes/mergers and aquisitions ;-)  I'll make sure he
> takes a look.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Mary
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Drummond Reed [mailto:drummond.reed@cordance.net] 
> > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 2:08 AM
> > To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org
> > Cc: 'Wachob, Gabe'; marc.lemaitre@cordance.net; 'James Bryce 
> > Clark'; xri@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [xri] XRI TC IPR Page Update
> > 
> > Mary,
> > 
> > During the public review we became aware that some links on 
> > the XRI TC IPR page 
> > (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xri/ipr.php) are out of 
> > date as the organization that made the original contribution 
> > (XNS.ORG) renamed itself to XDI.ORG in June of last year.
> > 
> > The website "xns.org" forwards to "xdi.org", so a link to the 
> > home page will still resolve correctly. However the IPR page 
> > that contains the full statement from the board of directors 
> > of XNS.ORG (dated November 22, 2002) includes a reference to 
> > the license at 
> http://www.xns.org/pages/licenses-and-agreements.html.
> > 
> > This page has now been renamed to
> > http://www.xdi.org/licenses-and-agreements.html.
> > 
> > What is the best way for us to go about updating these 
> > references? And should an update to this page include a note 
> > about the fact that the organization is now named XDI.ORG?
> > 
> > Thanks in advance for your help,
> > 
> > =Drummond 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS 
> > TC that generates this mail.  You may a link to this group 
> > and all your TCs in OASIS
> > at:
> > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
> > oups.php 
> > 
> > 
> 
>