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