Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontolog IPR issues

[Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx>]

Peter,

The problem with IPR is similar to the age-old academics feuds of who came up with what first.  You don't want to overly limit what can be brought into a discussion because hiding your head in the sand is rarely a useful approach.  So what to do?  For Ontolog, we exchange ideas and if anyone feels infringed upon, the recourse would seem to follow the traditional academic paths.  If people feel there is a need to make disclosure statements that are readily available for others to find, we may need to consider such a process.

Ken

On May 6, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Peter Yim wrote:

Ken,

[KL]  The major thing a SDO needs to worry that Ontolog fortunately

does not ...

[ppy]  Yes ... Jamie Clark and I had exactly the same conversation

just weeks ago. They (OASIS) run an SDO and We (Ontolog) only run a

"tavern" ("drinking fountain" even)! ...  :-)

[KL]  disclosure if there are known IPR encumbrances ...

[ppy]  good point ... I tend to side with not being sure if it is

worth the effort (eve if it adds further clarity.)

... but does our clause: "those who are unable to contribute under the

[open source, free software and open content] licensing arrangements

should refrain from contributing to the [ontolog-forum] content"

already cover that? ... i.e. people with material having other IPR

encumbrances are also allowed to post to our CWE as open source, free

software and open content (in a dual license mode, which is allowed.)

By the way, this actually also allows us to warn people like Paola

that her statement: "I am reserving right of first academic

publication to publish in relevant journal" is actually inconsistent

with the Ontolog IPR policy, and provides us the mandate to  even

remove that work from our CWE if her breach persists.

Thanks & regards.  =ppy

--

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 The major thing a SDO needs to worry that Ontolog fortunately does not is

the IPR status of standards that build on contributions to and deliberations

of those organizations.  The current mess really started when a contributor

tried to assert IPR on a new spec they helped write.

First, IANAL.  That said, I think the Ontolog policy is generally clear and

I would drop the OASIS reference because it is unclear what parts of the

OASIS policy are applicable and how to interpret parts found to be

insufficient by OASIS and later replaced.

There is one area I would consider beefing up but I am by no means sure it

is worth the effort:  disclosure if there are known IPR encumbrances on

contributed or recommended work.  See

http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php#disclosure or

http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Disclosure for

disclosure requirements for material leading to standards.  With respect to

Ontolog, this should only require a good faith relationship where no one

hides relevant, non-obvious IPR claims.  So, if you are talking about a

commercial product, some licensing costs or other terms are expected and

every mention of a product doesn't require a disclosure.  However, if there

are non-obvious encumbrances, then disclosure is warranted.  I think the

disclosure requirement is straightforward and the default assumption can be

there is nothing known to disclose if a disclosure hasn't been made.  That

said, if a disclosure is made somewhere in an email thread, the question is

whether that somehow has to be carried onward.  I'm not sure it's worthwhile

to craft the details if we don't have a real case to address, but it might

be kept in mind should the situation arise.

Ken

On May 6, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Peter Yim wrote:

Ken,

[KL]  I'm familiar (one might say *too* familiar) with the IPR rapids that

W3C

and OASIS continually attempt to navigate.

[ppy]  great! ... maybe you can give us some advice.

[KL]  If you believe the Ontolog policy

covers enough ground, I would drop the reference to the OASIS deprecated

policy.

[ppy]  good point. Homest answer: I am not sure ... but I trust the

(then) OASIS process and policy (actually, I trust Jon Bosak, who was

heavily involved with crafting it then, and of course, UBL chair,

enough to default to that.) ... In your opinion, do you think the

Ontolog IPR policy covers enough ground to allow us to safely drop the

reference to the OASIS deprecated policy?

Besides, it's not just the IPR policy, though, it's the entire process

that I am certain, is much better thought out than what we could have

done, at the time, for Ontolog (and, remembering that we were, after

all, a UBL TC spin-off then.)

There are other things that are ready for a face-lift too, like moving

the reference to OPL v1.0 to a Creative Commons v3 license ... but, I

(personal opinion) don't want to open this can of worms, as I see

moves like that are only cosmetic, do not add value, and may create

potential tensions that may just hurt the prevailing collaborative

spirit without advancing our cause by one iota. ... Therefore, I

suggest we hold-off until something breaks (which hasn't happened yet)

or circumstances arise that forces us to revisit the matter.

Thanks & regards.  =ppy

--

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 Peter,

I'm familiar (one might say *too* familiar) with the IPR rapids that W3C and

OASIS continually attempt to navigate.  The previous OASIS policy was found

to be insufficient; hence, the new one.  If you believe the Ontolog policy

covers enough ground, I would drop the reference to the OASIS deprecated

policy.

Ken

On May 6, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Peter Yim wrote:

Ken,

[KL]  To which

of the three choices I listed in my previous email do our processes point?

[ppy]  that would be your: (1) refer to the policy in place when

Ontolog was reconstituted.

The clarification I put in pegs the default to the OASIS IPR Policy in

place as of 23-Sep-2002.

[KL] Also, the OASIS IPR policy requires "At the time a TC is chartered, the

proposal to form the TC must specify the IPR Mode under which the Technical

Committee will operate."

[ppy]  I believe this is only put in place (by OASIS ... Jamie, or

someone familiar with this, please correct me if I got it wrong) AFTER

OASIS has offered a choice of IPR modes (which wasn't in place until

after 23-Sep-2002.)

Anyhow that is moot because, Ontolog ONLY defaults to the OASIS policy

and process IF there is no clearly specified ONTOLOG policy and

process, but we (Ontolog) actually do have a clearly specified IPR

Policy, as in http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32

Thanks & regards.  =ppy

--

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 Peter,

I'm not familiar with the processes defined in our reconstitution.  To which

of the three choices I listed in my previous email do our processes point?

Also, the OASIS IPR policy requires "At the time a TC is chartered, the

proposal to form the TC must specify the IPR Mode under which the Technical

Committee will operate."  See

http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php#tcformation.  Should

Ontolog declare under which mode it intends to operate?  If not, it is

unclear which parts of the OASIS IPR policy come into play.

Ken

On May 6, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Peter Yim wrote:

Thank you very much for pointing that out, Ken.

I will make the following clarification, changing the bullet in question -

To:

  "when in doubt, IPR matters relating to the [ontolog-forum] default

to the OASIS IPR policy (effective as of 23-September-2002; in

accordance with the processes defined in our reconstitution of

September 2002.)"

From:

  "when in doubt, IPR matters relating to the [ontolog-forum] default

to the OASIS IPR policy (in accordance with the processes defined in

our reconstitution of September 2002.)"

Thanks & regards.  =ppy

--

On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 Note that OASIS revised its IPR policy effective 1 October 2005.  See

http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php.  It should be made

clear whether we (1) refer to the policy in place when Ontolog was

reconstituted, (2) explicitly acknowledge the current policy, or (3) default

to changes in the OASIS policy as these become effective.

Ken

On May 5, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Peter P. Yim wrote:

       o when in doubt, IPR matters relating to the

[ontolog-forum] default to the OASIS IPR policy (in accordance

with the processes defined in our reconstitution of September

2002.)    (35)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken Laskey

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934

7151 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken Laskey

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934

7151 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken Laskey

MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934

7151 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379

McLean VA 22102-7508

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)