FW: [chairs] reminder to chairs: OASIS IPR Policy member review

As Hal mentioned last call, please take a look at the proposed OASIS IPR
policy...

See: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/members/200407/msg00002.html


Rob Philpott
Senior Consulting Engineer 
RSA Security Inc. 
Tel: 781-515-7115 
Mobile: 617-510-0893 
Fax: 781-515-7020 
mailto:


-----Original Message-----
From: Karl F. Best [mailto:] 
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 8:46 AM
To: Drummond Reed
Cc: ; Gabe Wachob (Gabe Wachob); 'geoffrey
strongin'; Dave Wentker (Wentker, Dave)
Subject: Re: [chairs] reminder to chairs: OASIS IPR Policy member review

Drummond:

I would like to request that you send this comment to the comment list 
at  so that the Board may consider

how to make these definitions more clear.

-Karl



Drummond Reed wrote:
> Karl,
> 
> I might be the first one to say this, and feel free to hit me with a
giant
> brickbat if you think I'm nuts, but in the generally clear new IPR
policy
> documents, one terminology issue has left me completely baffled.
> 
> "Unrestricted RF" vs. "Restricted RF" modes.
> 
> When I first saw these terms, I was inituitively certain of their
meaning:
> the first means royalty-free with no other licensing restrictions and
the
> second means royalty-free but with the possibility of other licensing
> restrictions that still need to be negotiated with the licensor.
> 
> Imagine my shock when reading the IPR FAQ documents that my intuitive
> understanding was 180 degrees wrong.
> 
> "Unrestricted RF" actually means "royalty-free but with no
restrictions on
> the LICENSOR to also require negotation of other terms from licensees"
and
> "Restricted RF" means "royalty-free plus the LICENSOR is also
restricted
> from requiring negotation of any other licensing terms from
licensees".
> 
> Exactly the opposite of what I thought.
> 
> While it's possible to screw one's head around hard enough to
understand
> these definitions, in trying to write messages to my two TCs to
explain the
> need for an upcoming IPR mode vote, I found myself having to do triple
> backflips to explain why two IPR modes had these incredibly confusing
names.
> I finally stopped and wrote you this message instead.
> 
> Am I truly the first one to bring this up? Wouldn't it completely
avoid this
> issue to have just called these modes "Partial RF" and "Full RF"? Or
> "Encumbered RF" and "Unencumbered RF"? 
> 
> At least then it would avoid the potential 180 degree
misinterpretation of
> the current terms.
> 
> =Drummond 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl F. Best [mailto:] 
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 11:55 AM
> To: 
> Subject: [chairs] reminder to chairs: OASIS IPR Policy member review
> 
> TC chairs:
> 
> On 9 July OASIS announced to its membership a draft IPR Policy that
has 
> been developed by our Board, and requested that members review and 
> provide comment on this draft. (See 
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/members/200407/msg00002.html)
> 
> One of the documents in this review is the proposed Transition Policy,

> which describes how TCs will transition to the new IPR Policy by 
> selecting an IPR mode to operate under, after which the OASIS members 
> (organizations and individuals) represented in the TC will vote to 
> ratify that selection.
> 
> In addition to the other issues in the IPR Policy that you
individually 
> and your companies may be interested in, I would also appreciate your 
> TCs looking at, discussing, and commenting on the transition to the
new 
> IPR Policy, as well as any other parts of the Policy that will affect 
> the day-to-day operations of the TC.
> 
> -Karl
> 
> =================================================================
> Karl F. Best
> Vice President, OASIS
> office  +1 978.667.5115 x206     mobile +1 978.761.1648
>       http://www.oasis-open.org
> 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
=================================================================
Karl F. Best
Vice President, OASIS
office  +1 978.667.5115 x206     mobile +1 978.761.1648
      http://www.oasis-open.org