[Top] [All Lists]

[oor-forum] OOR-IPR session-3: comments (strawman)

To: OpenOntologyRepository-discussion <oor-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Jamie Clark <jamie.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:22:23 -0700
Message-id: <AANLkTinH8waG8u6=VAkzEQd4PL+gmQU11P_uKp-TG4Pn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Today's chat is about the OOR "ontology IPR solution" strawman, posted
yesterday at: 
 There's a second thread about proposed community policy & legislative
statements at: 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository_IPR/Discussion#nid2I8C    (01)

As for the strawman.  Reaching closure today, on a policy text posted
yesterday, is an ambitious instance of "agile" community organizing.
Still, I look forward to participating in the discussion.    (02)

For what it's worth, here are my thoughts so far, without having yet
heard the discussion.  These are contributions in a personal capacity,
not representing OASIS.  Just sending this to make discussion
artifacts easier.    (03)

a.  I fundamentally agree that a 'gift' license approach is the right
filter for a repository of ontological material that is intended to be
widely and pervasively used.    (04)

b.  I'm ambivalent about the proposal to offer a large plethora of OSD
variants or non-OSD cognates.  I acknowledge the need to accommodate a
range of preexisting regimes.  Some stuff will come irretrievably
attached to an EUPL or Apache license or etc.    (05)

However, the draft's following phrases, which seem to be intended as
filters, might not create objective certainty:    (06)

  (i) The reference to licenses "compatible" with BSD or with "gift"
methodology.  Compatible by some measure other than self-assertion?
Shall I fork & invent ClarkPL tomorrow and just say "it's compatible?"    (07)

  (ii) The phrase "nonreciprocal." I know it's in common OSD
buzzspeak.  (For example, from 2006:
 But if it is a formal OOR federation criterion, would all readers and
courts reach the same conclusion as to its meaning? Does GPL copyleft
pass that filter? Does a license with a defensive nonreciprocity
clause? Does 'nonreciprocal' mean that the user never has to sign a
form? How sure are you about that?    (08)

c.  I also am concerned that some forms of "nonassertion" may be as
valid as a "license" or "public domain" grant for purposes of the OOR.
 But those may not be permitted by the draft text.    (09)

d.  If you do not want to use OSD qualification as a filter, from
where do we inherit a requirement that the contributions not come with
type-of-use restrictions?  Or are limited-use contributions intended
to be permitted?  Think about SNOMED, for example.    (010)

e.  On content (as opposed to executables), I'd be interested in
discussing whether the CC license should be made the default rather
than BSD.  And I assume you mean
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/? Or any version? or any CC
Attribution-* ?    (011)

f.   As for content versus "software" or executables.  OK, so, what's
JSON?  Etc.  Do we really have to boil that ocean?  Maybe just elide
the alleged dichotomy, and let the contributor decide?    (012)

As for the proposed policy & legislative position paper activity:  see
second message.    (013)

~ James Bryce Clark
~ General Counsel, OASIS
~ http://www.oasis-open.org/who/staff.php#clark  @JamieXML    (014)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/oor-forum/  
Subscribe: mailto:oor-forum-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/oor-forum/  
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OOR/ 
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OpenOntologyRepository     (015)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [oor-forum] OOR-IPR session-3: comments (strawman), Jamie Clark <=