Robert,
Thanks for clarifying all this.
It might be an idea to add a colour coded column to this table -
http://www.oasis-open.org/specs/
to indicate which ones are RF and which ones require licensing for
implementers - as right now everything is lumped together - and
people may be forgiven for thinking these being all publicly
approved spec's means they are all open and public licensing as
well.
I understand the need to be able to keep everything in synch'.
I'm not sure that decoupling the IP needs from the spec' however is
necessarily turning out in practice to be the best / least
confusing approach. We could always allow adminstrative
corrections to specifications directly when IP needs change - that
would cover off the points you raise. That way we have just one
place for everything - the specification download.
One question though - if I sign an agreement - and then subsequently
the terms change - do I have to re-sign? Seems like we probably
have to have that covered in the IP assignment clauses that OASIS asks
for - so grandfathering can occur.
DW
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE:
[chairs] Patent license friction...
From: "Philpott, Robert"
<>
Date: Tue, May 02, 2006 9:40
am
To: "David RR Webber (XML)" <>,
"Wachob,Gabe"
<>
Cc: "Chairs OASIS"
<>, "Frederick
Hirsch"
<>, "John Messing"
<>
From:
David RR Webber (XML) [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:19
PM
To:
Wachob,Gabe
Cc: Chairs
OASIS; Frederick Hirsch; John Messing
Subject: RE: [chairs] Patent license
friction...
Gabe,
As a TC chair I've not had to cover IP on a
spec' so I'm a little surprised to find that this is not more
formally addressed in the OASIS specifications
requirements.
I would expect something akin
to:
a) All licensing requirements clearly
stipulated as part of the body of the specifications in a specific
document section (beyond just the normal OASIS license
blurb).
[RSP] As IP issues can arise at any time,
including after the spec has been approved, I feel that putting such
info in the spec is not a good idea since it could end up being
incomplete unless you rev the spec. The current document template
refers people to the IPR page on the TC web site and, IMO, that should
remain the authoritative, single place to go look for IP claims and the
required licensing for those claims. If the web site is not clear,
especially on the licensing process, TC administration should address
it with the IP claimants and get it corrected. But I personally
don’t want to see this stuff going in the
specs.
b) Addendum entry that references points of
contacts for members that are asserting license
claims
[RSP] As I said, IMO, the web site is
sufficient.
c) Reference to a ZIP file stored in the TC
documents area that contains a copy of each actionable license from
each such member.
[RSP] This MIGHT be a reasonable thing to
do, but since companies sometimes change their contract and licensing
forms or update license wording, they might not want to do this, and it
runs the risk of becoming incomplete as well. Also, since some IP
might be asserted by companies that are not OASIS members, you’d
not likely get them to provide such a file to include in the ZIP
file.
I don’t believe the web site says
this, but if other non-member IP claims are known, there probably
SHOULD be a place on the TC IPR page to at least mention that and
hopefully list who they are. I’ll also point out that the
IPR pages could be organized a bit better. Just putting some
links at the top to each of the individual declarations would be
helpful. As it is now, it’s just a set of letters appended to
each other and you have to just scroll through
them.
We could then go one step further and note that
members who waive the right to include such entries a) thru c) - are
therefore providing a RF license for any relevant IP they may adjudge
to be applicable either currently or subsequently
later.
If this is not the case - I would suggest we
ask the BOD to review this urgently and create policy - before we get
more IP related specifications out there that are not clearly
delimited.
[RSP] I certainly don’t feel that
it’s not clear who has made IP claims on SAML (they’re all
on the web page at http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security/ipr.php);
the TC process is quite clear about soliciting claim info from members
and getting those declarations posted. However, the licensing process
in the Fidelity statement IS currently ambiguous. This was actually
pointed out to them recently and we’ve been working with them to
get that fixed (it’s almost done). The licensing process
for the AOL and RSA claims however are quite clear. AOL uses a
defensive suspension provision (i.e. you don’t have to do
anything to get an RF/RAND license, but if you bring any IP claims
against them, you lose that license). The current RSA process
states that implementers MUST download/sign/return a license from the
RSA web site (link is provided). Note that this will be changing
very shortly as we have submitted a new letter to OASIS in the past few
days that changes our process to a defensive suspension provision, ala
the AOL declaration.
IMO, if there are TC’s with
encumbered specs that don’t have clear info on their TC IPR page
for users of the specs, then that is a problem that TC administration
should address with the TC. I don’t think we need
additional, multiple places to put the info where the possibility
arises for one (i.e. the specs, a ZIP file) to become
out-of-date.
It’s always a technology
adopter’s responsibility to find out whether they are using
someone else’s IP, and if so, properly licensing that IP.
The current OASIS process is clear on how to locate that info. OASIS
can and should make sure that the info is clear on the licensing
process for each claim, but that’s a relatively minor admin issue
IMO. Once the claims and licensing process are declared,it’s the
responsibility of the IP holder to monitor industry use of their IP and
ensure that users are licensed. Otherwise, I believe they run the risk
of losing their rights to the IP because they didn’t attempt to
defend their claims – obviously IANAL so take this with a grain
of salt J)
