[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] The Open Source Business Process Management Ontolog

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Dieter E. Jenz" <dejenz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Peter P. Yim" <yimpp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:16:59 -0800
Message-id: <3FA1397B.3020701@xxxxxxxxxxx>
The following is a response Vladimir and I received from Dieter Jenz 
clarifying their position on the licensing terms and conditions. I'm 
sure some of our community members will be delighted on the arrangement.    (01)

Thank you, Dieter for the good work that you are sharing with 
everyone. And, thanks to Vladimir to bring it to our attention.    (02)

--    (03)

Dieter E. Jenz wrote Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:40:17 +0100:
> Peter, Vladimir,
> The Business Process Management Ontology (BPMO) is "Open Source" in 
> every respect. It is not source code that needs to be compiled, but "a 
> formal explicit description of concepts in a domain of discourse". When 
> someone downloads the BPMO, there is no need to reverse engineer 
> executable code to obtain the source code.
> We have invested hundreds of man-hours in the design of the BPMO. For 
> obvious reasons, we want to make sure that Jenz & Partner is recognized 
> as creator of the BPMO. Of course, organizations that want to make use 
> of the BPMO and customize it, so that it can better fit their specific 
> requirements, must be allowed to do so. We have created a license 
> agreement that brings both sides together.
> The license is basically in line with licenses for other types of 
> reusable entities, such as dictionaries and business document schemas 
> (e.g. OAGI Business Object Documents) and places no restrictions on the 
> commercial use of the BPMO. Please find attached the license file, which 
> is also available on our web site 
 > <http://www.bpiresearch.com/Resources/RE_OSSOnt/re_ossont.htm>.
> I feel that the license terms are very flexible. However, I am open to 
> suggestions for improvement.
> Best regards
> Dieter
---    (04)

> Peter P. Yim wrote Mon, 27 Oct 2003 07:46:30 -0800:
>> Vladimir,
>> Ref my earlier query about Dieter Jenz work:
>> Since your 2003.10.23 post characterized it as being "Open Source", I 
>> was trying to get a clarification as to whether it is truly open 
>> source (since I did not see the same being identified on Jenz's work 
>> or his website - then, of course, I may just have missed it.)
>> The term "Open Source" and "Free Software" have well defined meanings 
>> and connotations -- ref., respectively,
>>   "The Open Source Definition" at:
>>    http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
>> and
>>   "The Free Software Definition" and "The GNU General Public License"
>>    http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
>>  & http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html
>> It is quite possible that Jenz's work is not "open source" work
>> (unlike  software like Protégé, which is available as free software 
>> under the open-source Mozilla Public License (which is an open source 
>> license -- see: http://protege.stanford.edu/download.html). That 
>> clarification would be useful to the community.
>> Regards,
>> PPY
>> --     (05)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (06)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>