Fwd: [chairs] New IPR policy - a giant step backwards?

EM-TC Members:  Sept 10 is the last day for comments on the Draft
IPR Policy.  If you have any comments about how OASIS views
intellectual property, you might be interested in following the
thread.  A top level view and pointers to the details are on the top
of the Members Only page.  I am passing along below a note from one
of the other chairs that you may find interesting.  Elysa
Jones

Delivered-To:


Mailing-List: contact ; run by 
ezmlm

X-No-Archive: yes

List-Post:
<mailto:>

List-Help:
<mailto:>

List-Unsubscribe:
<mailto:>

List-Subscribe:
<mailto:>

Delivered-To: mailing list 

From: "David RR Webber" <>

To: "Chairs OASIS" <>

Cc: <>

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:08:14 -0400

X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437

X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on 

        hermes.oasis-open.org

X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=7.0 tests=HTML_20_30,HTML_MESSAGE

        autolearn=no
version=2.64

X-Spam-Level: **

Subject: [chairs] New IPR policy - a giant step backwards?

X-AntiVirus: checked by Vexira Milter (version: 1.1-beta3; VAE: 6.27.0.6;
VDF: 6.27.0.32; host: magneto.pns.networktel.net)

Good and Gentle Folks

 

I've finally found time to read the new IPR
policy following Patrick's excellent posting on the topic.

 

Unfortunately I could not recommend any of the
three proposed modes to my TC as they represent 

IMHO a giant step backwards.

 

This especially applies to work that came into
OASIS from UN/CEFACT - but also other TC's that 

have subsummed government funded work where the requirement is for open
contributions

that are not burdened by any IPR considerations.

 

If the TC already has open public
specifications that are completely free of any licensing
requirements

and are available with open source implementations - why would such a TC
want to open the door

to contributions that may taint the position of that existing established
body of work?

 

I therefore see - to maintain backwards
compatibility - that we need to have a fourth category of

open public work that is not burdened by any IPR or licensing
considerations.  Members joining

such a TC would up front understand that they may not contribute any work
that does not meet

these criteria.

 

Frankly - I'm dismayed that the three modes
proposed for OASIS could be viewed as merely 

opening up the door to widespread and extended licensing requirements to
become the 

normal modus operadi - instead of them being rare and exceptional
practice.  

 

I see that OASIS should be taking a stand to
establishing open standard practices - not the

reverse.  If a TC is created around IPR - that's there business -
but we need to maintain

a very clear distinction between that and all the existing other OASIS
specifications.

 

Frankly - whether I work for a company or not -
with the three proposed modes - why would

I not file IPR on everything I ever submit to OASIS in future?  This
is just a recipe for 

insanity - where I can force every company in a TC I am in to sign a
licensing agreement

from me once I become a member and contribute anything at all to 
it.

 

The European Community is taking a higher
position on all this than the USA.  Given the

level of international participation and increasing interest in OASIS the
new IPR modes

simply point to a dark and ugly shadow being cast over our specifications
that IMHO

would drive away such governments and organizations ever wanting to use
our

specifications.

 

We need the fourth option to have unequivocal
and clear specifications that are completely

unburdened and open public works.   We need advice on
this.  I'm assuming that if a TC

decides itself - that that is a requirement for participation - then it
can adopt that as its

charter instead of the 3 IPR based options being offered up here?

 

Thanks, DW