We should consider the option to move ontolog to oasis rather than do it
ourselves
Sent from my Blackberry. Sorry for typos. (01)
----- Original Message -----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; [ontolog-forum]
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue May 06 09:38:00 2008
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontolog IPR issues (02)
Peter, (03)
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. (04)
Ken (05)
On May 6, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Peter Yim wrote: (06)
Ken, (07)
[KL] The major thing a SDO needs to worry that Ontolog
fortunately
does not ... (08)
[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)! ... :-) (09)
[KL] disclosure if there are known IPR encumbrances ... (010)
[ppy] good point ... I tend to side with not being sure if it is
worth the effort (eve if it adds further clarity.) (011)
... 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.) (012)
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. (013)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (014)
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: (015)
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. (016)
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. (017)
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 (018)
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php#disclosure or (019)
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. (020)
Ken (021)
On May 6, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Peter Yim wrote: (022)
Ken, (023)
[KL] I'm familiar (one might say *too* familiar) with the IPR
rapids that
W3C (024)
and OASIS continually attempt to navigate. (025)
[ppy] great! ... maybe you can give us some advice. (026)
[KL] If you believe the Ontolog policy
covers enough ground, I would drop the reference to the OASIS
deprecated
policy. (027)
[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? (028)
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.) (029)
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. (030)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (031)
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Peter, (032)
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. (033)
Ken (034)
On May 6, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Peter Yim wrote: (035)
Ken, (036)
[KL] To which
of the three choices I listed in my previous email do our
processes point? (037)
[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. (038)
[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." (039)
[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.) (040)
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 (041)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (042)
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Peter, (043)
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? (044)
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 (045)
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. (046)
Ken (047)
On May 6, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Peter Yim wrote: (048)
Thank you very much for pointing that out, Ken. (049)
I will make the following clarification, changing the bullet in
question - (050)
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.)" (051)
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.)" (052)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (053)
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. (054)
Ken (055)
On May 5, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Peter P. Yim wrote: (056)
o when in doubt, IPR matters relating to the (057)
[ontolog-forum] default to the OASIS IPR policy (in accordance (058)
with the processes defined in our reconstitution of September (059)
2002.) (35) (060)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7151 Colshire Drive fax:
703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508 (061)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7151 Colshire Drive fax:
703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508 (062)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7151 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508 (063)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (064)
|