RE: [wsbpel-implement] Use of contributed IPR in conducting tests of partial and draft specifications

i 
guess even non-oasis members could have claims (especially patents) which may 
need to be respected (in some countries).

 

BTW: I 
guess we still miss siebels statement?

 

 

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: - http://www.seeburger.de 

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 
  12:46 AM
To: James Bryce Clark; 
  
Cc: ; 
  ; 
Subject: RE: 
  [wsbpel-implement] Use of contributed IPR in conducting tests of partial and 
  draft specifications

  
Hi 
  Jamie,

  
 

  
Just a point of 
  clarification. You say below:

  
 

  
"I note that the 
  majority of WSBPEL TC contributors already have provided names and contact 
  information for licensing permission, in their postings to the TC's IPR 
  notices page (www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbel/ipr.php).   
  I'd assume that they would be willing to provide adequate assurances for 
  testing activities they support.  I suggest that prospective test 
  participants contact them, if concerned about a licensing gap for permission 
  to build a test client.  At this stage, as I read it, they're free to 
  provide licenses or not, and members are free to decide whether to participate 
  or not.  Of course, those decisions may affect adoption of the 
  work".

  
But that is 
  only a part of the issue. In other words, the existing IPR statements 
  only relate to the initial BPEL 1.1 submission. Any work contributed since the 
  beginning of the TC's activities could be subject to additional IPR claims 
  (coming not only from the original submitters but also from any 
  other member of the TC). Is that correct?

  
 

  
If so, then your 
  other statement should apply, i.e. "Members may have claims against the work 
  being incorporated into a specification, and are encouraged to disclose them, 
  in which case those disclosures are posted to the TC's IPR notices page". So 
  they are "encouraged to disclose" but they don't have to. Is that 
  correct?

  
So an 
  implementation might be infringing on IPR claims above and beyond those 
  currently expressed in the IPR notices page of the TC. (I am not saying this 
  is good or bad, just trying to get the complete picture).

  
 

  
Thank 
  you,

  
Ugo

  
 

  
 -----Original 
  Message-----
From: James Bryce Clark 
  [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 
  2003 8:55 AM
To: 
Cc: 
  ; ; 
  
Subject: [wsbpel-implement] Use of 
  contributed IPR in conducting tests of partial and draft 
  specifications

      
    This follows up on my 10 November message to this list, and the conversation 
    we had at the last wsbpel-implementation subcommittee meeting regarding the 
    possible need for licenses in connection with "testbed" plugfests prior to a 
    specification's approval.  Several members asked whether the OASIS IPR 
    policy applies equally to, or works differently for, interim 
    interoperability tests conducted as an official but informal TC 
    activity.

    Please note that each OASIS member is 
    responsible for their own compliance with, and interpretations of, our 
    rules, so we cannot provide advice that replaces your need to consult with 
    your own experts.  The definitive answers to these questions can be 
    found only in the text of our posted rules.  In case it's helpful, 
    though, here is my understanding of the pertinent general issues.  
    

    Our current policy does not distinguish between 
    'testbed' implementations and other uses of IP contributed to an OASIS 
    Technical Committee.  As a result, the usual rules apply, e.g., 
    
    --  Members may have claims against the work 
    being incorporated into a specification, and are encouraged to disclose 
    them, in which case those disclosures are posted to the TC's IPR notices 
    page.
    -- Contributors are encouraged to offer licenses 
    permitting the use of those contributions, but are permitted to set their 
    own "reasonable and nondiscriminatory" conditions and restrictions (which 
    also are posted to that notice page).
    -- Users must 
    evaluate the license offers that are made, and satisfy themselves that they 
    have acquired sufficient permission for their planned implementation or 
    derivation.  Those determinations are to be made by each 
    user.

    I note that the majority of WSBPEL TC 
    contributors already have provided names and contact information for 
    licensing permission, in their postings to the TC's IPR notices page (www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbel/ipr.php).   
    I'd assume that they would be willing to provide adequate assurances for 
    testing activities they support.  I suggest that prospective test 
    participants contact them, if concerned about a licensing gap for permission 
    to build a test client.  At this stage, as I read it, they're free to 
    provide licenses or not, and members are free to decide whether to 
    participate or not.  Of course, those decisions may affect adoption of 
    the work.

    OASIS TC members are free to express 
    their opinions about whether any given work has sufficiently broad and 
    available licensure to permit widespread implementation.  Any member 
    may choose to adopt a position regarding any of our standards or drafts, or 
    any element of them, including voting against it, or conditioning its 
    support on satisfactory license availability.  (And it does 
    happen;  I was involved in some of those issues when I was a TC 
    participant myself, before joining the OASIS staff.)   OASIS' role 
    is to provide an open forum for this, and to encourage communication about 
    wider availability.  Ultimately, though, the "market demand" for 
    adequately-available IPR terms comes from developers and users, and 
    is expressed by their decisions to accept or reject conditions, and to adopt 
    or decline to use the work.    
    
 
    Our industry is in transition.  
    Complex patent and competition issues affect standards development with an 
    intensity that did not exist five years ago.  Purely as a  
    personal observation, I think we're in an experimental phase, and it's still 
    too early to judge how readily developers and end-users will adopt 
    standards that embed substantial license restrictions.  We should learn 
    much about this in the next year.  I can't dismiss the possibility that 
    some continuing license conditions will be acceptable.  Look at SOAP, a 
    success by anyone's measure, but the subject of multiple proprietary claims 
    through most of its development.  The positions that OASIS members take 
    regarding what kinds of licenses are appropriate, or necessary, are 
    essential input into this important, developing issue.   
    

    Regards  Jamie

~   James 
    Bryce Clark
~   Manager Tech Stds Dev, OASIS
~   
    +1 978 667 5115 x 203 central office
~   +1 310 293 6739 
    direct