oodf-board — archive

Re: Comments re: [Compiler Partners] Re: MDS 2.0 schema work proposal

From: James Bryce Clark
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2023 00:57:00 -0000

Andrew, I received the Google markup this morning and will get it out tonight. We know you want to close on that one. Sometimes these can be awkward, as members' lawyers sometimes have creative ideas... while your own default position usually is that all of your members should have the same rights under the same rules. More later tonight. Cordially Jamie James Bryce Clark, General Counsel, OASIS Open, setting the standard for open collaboration On Thu, Feb 2, 2023 Andrew Glass Hastings < [email protected] > wrote: Thanks for the review and comments, Jamie. On another topic - did you get the Google partnership agreement to review? This is the last step before Google joins and pays $105K so really appreciate your timely review. Their interval process has taken forever. Let me know if there are any questions or concerns. Thanks much! -AGH - Andrew Glass Hastings *Sent in transit On Feb 1, 2023, Jamie Clark < [email protected] > wrote: Hello Michael and Andrew. Scott forwarded this to me; apologies that this took a couple of days to touch and reply. I have inserted suggestions into the Google Doc draft agreement. (A fixed copy as annotated also is attached.) THOSE edit suggestions presumably are visible to your contractor, but THESE email comments are not. I remember Kegan. So: if Contractor gives you code and code documentation, and you use it, of course it's freely usable as part of MDS , due to your overall licensing. (See Section 10 on page 5.) And that may be all their contract drafter is worried about. But if Kegan also shipped other non-code work, like analysis or critique, the CC-BY-4 terms do not necessarily apply . You might want control over such m aterial , to be exclusively provided by Compiler for OMF ' s use (as the original contract form said) . See my edits to his new "License" clause in Exhibit A on p age 10. However, if you don't care about control, and are happy to have him contribute all of his work to you in the open, you could accept the rest of it under CC-BY-4 terms as well ... and delete the [bracketed] clauses ... as long as you are willing to have your materials permanently carry his attribution (the "BY" condition). regards, Jamie mobile 1-310-293-6739 James Bryce Clark General Counsel & CPO OASIS Open [email protected] Xing LinkedIn Twitter Mastodon Setting the standard for open collaboration . ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Michael Schnuerle < michael@ openmobilityfoundation .org > Subject: Fwd: [Compiler Partners] Re: MDS 2.0 schema work proposal To: omf-staff < omf-staff@ openmobilityfoundation .org >, Scott McGrath < [email protected] > Cc: Cathie Mayo < [email protected] > Hi Scott, Back in September 2021 we had a company called Compiler do some MDS work for us. We are asking them to do some more work and have a scope of work and agreement draft. They did bring up some valid questions about the licensing and ownership language in the agreement. Here are their suggested edits from their lawyer since the OMF will not own their work and the work is open source. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O1aSaTBhS7BOXKHqW5zCAv9D_XkbNFq-3Q7IBHAmNeo/edit Let me know what you think and if this is acceptable, or feel free to leave comments and suggested edits of your own directly in the document. Thanks, Michael Schnuerle Director of Open Source Operations @ MichaelMobility @ OpenMobilityFnd