Well said, Ken. ... (while I am not looking forward to that happening
any time soon, but I'm sure it will eventually need to happen) When it
comes time to update the Ontolog IPR Policy, let's remember to bring
this up too. (01)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (02)
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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 (03)
> 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
> -- (04)
> 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 (05)
> 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
> -- (06)
> 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 (07)
> 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
> -- (08)
> 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 (09)
> 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
> -- (010)
> 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 (011)
> 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 (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|