Joint OOR-Ontolog-NCBO-CC-IAOA-OASIS "OpenOntologyRepository_IPR Policy and Issues" Panel Discussion (session-3) - Thu 30-Sep-2010    (2HJ7)

Conference Call Details:    (2HJM)

Attendees:    (2HKL)

Resources    (2HKW)

Abstract:    (2HLE)

This "OOR-IPR mini-series" will, hopefully, start a dialog among the global ontology community, to specifically address IPR issues relating to the "open ontology repository (OOR)" initiative. The discussion will, invariably, touch upon IPR issues pertaining to ontology in general as well.    (2HLG)

This mini-series is jointly organized by the OOR initiative, the Ontolog-community, NCBO (US National Center for Biomedical Ontology), CC (Creative Commons), IAOA (the International Association for Ontology and its Applications) and OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards).    (2HLH)

Given the complexity of the issues involved, one can look as this mini-series to merely be the beginning of a quest, by the collaborating parties and their communities, to fully understand the issues, and to get themselves into a position to address them.    (2HLI)

After looking at the pertinent IPR landscape, and assessing IPR issues that are related to OOR in the first two sessions, we shall, at this 3rd session of the OOR-IPR mini-series, discuss the options that are open to us, and attempt to arrive at some consensus on licensing arrangements that should be adopted for various aspects of the OOR Initiative.    (2HLJ)

Please refer also to the background and thoughts collected during the process of organizing this mini-series, at: OpenOntologyRepository_IPR    (2HLK)

Agenda & Proceedings:    (2HL7)

The Strawman:    (2I8P)

Candidate IPR Policy for the OOR Initiative:    (2I8Q)

Candidate Position Statements that we would make:    (2I90)

(as a joint community co-organizing this effort) which we will seek (optional) endorsements by individual members of the communities involved.    (2I91)

Key follow-up action items:    (2I97)

  1. modify the strawman based on today's conversation, essentially in removing "compatible" gift licenses as much as we can, and adding a bullet on accepting libraries (Apache and LGPL) for software contributions; and then float that to the mailing lists for further discussion and consensus building as planned;    (2IGK)
  2. starting a wikipage to develop and substantiate our position on "no ontology patents;"    (2IGL)
  3. check if there is serious objection (from the co-organizing communities) in our posting the two "no patents" positions ... if there is no serious objection to do it, we'll start a wikipage to collect endorsements to those positions;    (2IGM)
  4. make contact and "recruit" legal professionals who will be willing to work with us (on a pro bono basis, at least initially, possibly long haul) so we do have proper legal advice and opinion when the team needs to deal with IPR issues in the future    (2IGN)

Transcript of the online chat during the session:    (2HLV)

 see raw transcript here.    (2HLW)
 (for better clarity, the version below is a re-organized and lightly edited chat-transcript.)
 Participants are welcome to make light edits to their own contributions as they see fit.    (2HLX)
    -- begin of chat session --    (2HLY)
	PeterYim: .    (2IK5)
	Welcome to the Joint OOR-Ontolog-NCBO-CC-IAOA-OASIS 
	OpenOntologyRepository_IPR Policy and Issues Panel Discussion (session-3) - Thu 30-Sep-2010    (2IK6)
	* Topic: "OOR-IPR session 3: discussion and consensus on licensing arrangements for the OOR Initiative, 
	          and positions we might take on related IPR issues"    (2IK7)
	* Chair: Dr. LeoObrst (Co-convener, OOR; MITRE)    (2IK8)
	* Panelists:
	  o Mr. PeterYim (Co-convener, OOR; Ontolog; IAOA) - presenting the "Strawman" 
	  o Mr. MikeDean (Co-convener, OOR; Raytheon-BBN) - Commentary, as team lead for the OOR system development
	  o Mr. BrucePerens (original author of the "Open Source Definition") - Commentary
	  o Mr. JamesBryceClark - (General Counsel, OASIS) - Commentary    (2IK9)
	Please refer to details on the session page
	at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?ConferenceCall_2010_09_30    (2IKA)
	.    (2IKB)
	anonymous morphed into YuriyMilov    (2IKC)
	anonymous morphed into JamieClark    (2IKD)
	[... someone accidentally put the line on hold, and a fanfare got piped through into the conference! :-) ]    (2IKE)
	JamieClark: would a condition that your theme music be played, before you speak, violate a 
	requirement that your contribution be unconditional?    (2IKF)
	anonymous1 morphed into Matt Liebenson1    (2IKG)
	anonymous1 morphed into ElizabethFlorescu    (2IKH)
	[ PeterYim presenting "the strawman" ]    (2IKI)
	BrucePerens: We need to have a discussion of "license combinatorics".    (2IKJ)
	JamieClark: amen    (2IKK)
	BrucePerens: Default to BSD is OK. Having a large combination of other licenses in the mix is _not_ OK 
	for reasons I will explain.    (2IKL)
	BrucePerens: I say stuff like this all the time. Unfortunately I can't get either the Supreme Court 
	or Congress to listen, nor even the Patent office.    (2IKM)
	BrucePerens: No. Well, there are some limited possibilities.    (2IKN)
	BrucePerens: Nor whether Ontology is a copyrightable nor patentable art.    (2IKO)
	AlexGarcia: should all ontologies adopt a license? I mean as soon as a repository is part of the 
	federation should those ontologies being hosted by those repositories part of the federation adopt 
	one licensing schema?    (2IKP)
	JamieClark: I actually think ontologies are useful as an instance of proof that the existing IP 
	legal regime has some holes and uncertainties. So a facile statement that ontologies are, or are 
	not, covered, seems of little value.    (2IKQ)
	JamieClark: ... Simple-minded lawyer's version of "license combinatorics": Tragically, not 
	everything works with everything else. No matter how much you wish it so. 
	See, for example, this chart (below) at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3-compatibility.png    (2IKR)
	AlexGarcia: not all the ontologies being hosted by swoogle have the same licensing schema    (2IKS)
	JamieClark: Bruce says (if I understand correctly): FreeBSD implicitly includes a patent license due 
	to the patent exhausting doctrine, but doesn't hit the hot button of an explicit patent grant.    (2IKT)
	BrucePerens: Right. It's the doctrine of patent exhaustion, and the fact that the license does not 
	explicitly say it only grants copyright rights.    (2IKU)
	BrucePerens: The problem, Jamie, is that Ontology is executed.    (2IKV)
	AlexGarcia: sourceforge.net makes it easy for people to use their repository by providing several 
	licenses for the projects they host    (2IKW)
	BrucePerens: But not all of the stuff on SourceForge is meant to be combined. We will be combining 
	ontologies. Open Source projects that are meant to be combining pieces arrive at a common set of 
	compatible licenses.    (2IKX)
	AlexGarcia: the networking nature of ontologies is a problem    (2IKY)
	AlexGarcia: how do people license libraries of software. when using ontologies as modules they are 
	similar to libraries    (2IKZ)
	BrucePerens: Library licenses allow for more combination than non-library licenses. LGPL is an 
	example. GPL terms but combine it with anything.    (2IL0)
	BrucePerens: Non-assert is not as safe as a license.    (2IL1)
	JamieClark: Bruce and I aren't disagreeing here: any contributor who thinks their stuff IS 
	executable (or bears similar use characteristics) ought to have the ability to involve a license 
	that (like BSD) gives them as-is-whereis-waiver protection.    (2IL2)
	BrucePerens: Jamie, is the contributor the one who needs to determine that, or the person who might 
	have to process the ontology?    (2IL3)
	JamieClark: On "Nonassertion covenants", here is a writeup: 
	http://www.iphandbook.org/handbook/ch07/p06/    (2IL4)
	AdamPease: Does current thinking support allowing LGPL code as part of the OOR?    (2IL5)
	JamieClark: And here is an early (2005) nonassertion instance: 
	http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.php    (2IL6)
	JamieClark: @Bruce: well, if we let people who contribute have a choice, the decision's made by each 
	of them at design-time. Then at run-time, each user decides whether the aggregated rights on offer 
	are good enough for their planned use. (Or they let some filtering function like an IPR rule 
	substitute for their own judgment.)    (2IL7)
	BrucePerens: That's why I'd rather grant the right by default. Why make things harder for the user?    (2IL8)
	AlexGarcia: which is run-time for ontologies? is it run-time for the software using the ontologies?    (2IL9)
	StuartTurner: Are the licenses mentioned so far those of interest or desired or are they in fact the 
	existing licenses of all software, including libraries, in the current OOR technology stack?    (2ILA)
	BrucePerens: Usual $12,000 charge for me to explain this to the customer's lawyer, and then the 
	lawyer charges that much too.    (2ILB)
	StuartTurner: We had Palamida perform a IP analysis on a set of proprietary code in order for us to 
	remove IP restrictions and replace components with compatible open source libraries. These services 
	were gifted, but we had the impression the costs were at least what Bruce mentioned.    (2ILC)
	BrucePerens: That's right. Include a GPL component in software and you have to treat the entire work 
	as GPL until you've removed that component. Which I generally like for my software but it might not 
	work for you.    (2ILD)
	BrucePerens: It's a question of "contribute" vs. "interoperate".    (2ILE)
	BrucePerens: Viral is pejorative.    (2ILF)
	PeterYim: sorry, Bruce! ... "reciprocal" … :-)    (2ILG)
	BrucePerens: Or "share and share alike".    (2ILH)
	BrucePerens: I have nightmares that MPAA will start getting kindergartens to teach kids not to share 
	their toys.    (2ILI)
	JamieClark: @Bruce: Maybe the pejorative itself is fixed in time and culture. I pointed out to a 
	child that a certain thing might have a virus recently, and her reaction was 'cooooooool'.)    (2ILJ)
	JamieClark: (and she set about debugging it.)    (2ILK)
	BrucePerens: And not enough about the license applied to ontologies.    (2ILL)
	BrucePerens: We need to establish two things: 1. that we can make a tool together without license 
	issues, and 2. that we can actually have ontologies interoperate when we're done.    (2ILM)
	JamieClark: Mike's here, let's ask him.    (2ILN)
	BrucePerens: That was my statement of approval.    (2ILO)
	MikeDean: good point about LGPL    (2ILP)
	BrucePerens: LGPL can be combined with other licenses. There are additional requirements on 
	distribution. You must be able to replace the LGPL component in situ, so we usually distribute it as 
	a DLL.    (2ILQ)
	BrucePerens: It's possible from a legal perspective.    (2ILR)
	BrucePerens: You must distribute source with the LGPL component or respond to requests for it for a 
	period of 3 years.    (2ILS)
	BrucePerens: BSD is in there because we know it doesn't have combinatorial problems.    (2ILT)
	BrucePerens: BSD is more used than MIT and is functionally equivalent.    (2ILU)
	BrucePerens: 3-clause BSD or 2-clause is probably immaterial.    (2ILV)
	BrucePerens: They (the OOR team) need an IPR committee.    (2ILW)
	JamieClark: I agree BSD is optimally useful. But you are already talking about going out with a set 
	of tools that's pregnant with Mozilla and Eclipse. So of what relevance is a generalized desire for 
	BSD terms, if getting there would require rework of all the software packages you are now 
	assembling?    (2ILX)
	PeterYim: because "as open as possible; as free as possible" is an important part of the OOR vision, 
	and "(2-clause) Simplified BSD" comes closest to that (than the Mozilla or Eclipse licenses)    (2ILY)
	JamieClark: (*** Aspirational statements and license terms are distinct phenomena. ***)    (2ILZ)
	MikeDean: There probably should be a list of allowable library/dependency licenses as well, e.g. 
	Apache and LGPL.    (2IM0)
	MikeDean: There also needs to be some escape clause for evaluating other licenses on a case-by-case 
	basis and/or re-evaluating the list periodically.    (2IM1)
	JamieClark: Ick! lawyers! At run-time!    (2IM2)
	JamieClark: If your system induces each contributor to ask a lawyer, every time, isn't that a fail?    (2IM3)
	BrucePerens: They will anyway, if they work for an organization bigger than 50 people.    (2IM4)
	BrucePerens: You can accept a contribution on a defined list of licenses along with a statement from 
	the contributor that they have the right to contribute the work.    (2IM5)
	BrucePerens: Don't say this in public before you have tenure.    (2IM6)
	StuartTurner: We are exposing to the community (healthcare/NIH) information about relevant extant 
	ontologies. Our objective is more a registry than a repository. Despite clearly wishing for 
	universal adoption of open source and open content licensing, we have a considerable number of 
	ontologies (also terminologies/vocabularies) that have proprietary licensing that is not compatible 
	with this vision. Excluding these ontologies is not consistent with our goals of informing the 
	community, unfortunately, so we need to remain agnostic regarding the chosen license (for content). 
	We also wish to identify a canonical and current source (IRI/URI/OID) for a given license as well.    (2IM7)
	PeterYim: @Jamie - good point about substantiating our position with "why" we don't want to see 
	ontologies be patentable    (2IM8)
	PeterYim: maybe we should start a wikipage to build out the substantiation to our position    (2IM9)
	JamieClark: i think we could contribute substantially to that debate, yes    (2IMA)
	JamieClark: Among other things, JohnWilbanks (who's absent today) told us 3 weeks ago that his group 
	is going to publish further on this point.    (2IMB)
	BrucePerens: Software patents are the elephant in the living room of Open Source.    (2IMC)
	BrucePerens: Tim Berners-Lee and W3C would probably join you in calling for there to be no patents 
	on ontologies.    (2IMD)
	PeterYim: @Bruce - can you provide names of people who might provide pro bono legal help to this 
	cause?    (2IME)
	BrucePerens: Software Freedom Law Center (http://www.softwarefreedom.org)    (2IMF)
	MikeDean: Thanks everyone    (2IMG)
	JamieClark: Thanks all, very interesting.    (2IMH)
	PeterYim: Action items: (i) modify the strawman based on today's conversation, essentially in 
	removing "compatible" gift licenses as much as we can, and adding a bullet on libraries (Apache and 
	LGPL) .... and float that to the mailing lists for further discussion and consensus as planned; (ii) 
	starting a wikipage to develop and substantiate our position on "no ontology patents;" (iii) check 
	if there is serious objection (from the co-organizing communities) in our posting the two "no 
	patents" positions ... if there is no serious objection to do it, we'll start a wikipage to collect 
	endorsements to those positions; (iv) make contact and "recruit" legal professionals who will be 
	willing to work with us (on a pro bono basis, at least initially, possibly long haul) so we do have 
	proper legal advice and opinion when the team needs to deal with IPR issues in the future    (2IMI)
	PeterYim: Great session ... thanks everyone!    (2IMJ)
	PeterYim: -- session ended: 12:33pm PDT --    (2IMK)
    -- end of chat session --    (2HLZ)

Consensus IPR Policy for the OOR Initiative:    (2I98)

... upon adoption as a consensus by the participants at this session, this policy will be circulated via the community mailing list(s) and will be opened to comments from the rest of the community for one week. Barring serious objection (under which circumstances, the subject will be re-opened to debate by those involved), this OOR IPR Policy (non-substantive edits included, as appropriate) will be adopted and go into effect as of 15-Oct-2010.    (2I99)

... (coming!)    (2IMQ)

Audio Recording of this Session    (2HM4)

For the record ...    (2HMC)

How To Join (while the session is in progress)    (2HMD)