[KI-LC] [BoT] Proposed Change to the Intellectual Property Rights Policy

Brett McDowell email at brettmcdowell.com
Wed Dec 2 19:07:46 EST 2009


Here's the last message I think was specific to the naming conversation.  The three names are pasted at the top for easy review:

>>>> 1) Source Code CLA: Apache 2.0
>>>> 2) Copyright: CC Share Alike with Attribution
>>>> 3) Patent & Copyright: Reciprocal Royalty Free with Opt-Out to RAND


Brett McDowell  |  http://info.brettmcdowell.com  |  http://KantaraInitiative.org

On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Eve Maler wrote:

> Personally, I think we should go ahead on #1.  And we should see if we can convince Bill Smith to round up some (joint BoT/LC?) committee activity on #2. :-)
> 
> 	Eve
> 
> On 17 Nov 2009, at 10:21 AM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
> 
>> Brett -
>> 
>> Brett McDowell wrote:
>>> +1 to forming a committee to work on #2, but that doesn't need to hold-up the IPR Policy revision does it?
>>> 
>> 
>> The risk in moving forward with (1) before the work of (2) is complete
>> would be if the output of (2) suggest another naming change.  The
>> benefit is more clarity sooner than we have today.
>> 
>> The risk in waiting on (1) for (2) to complete is if the current names
>> alienate (for whatever reason) potential participants while we work on
>> the "perfect" solution.  The benefit is fewer changes with potentially
>> less confusion.
>> 
>> IMO, if there is consensus that (1) is the right solution for now (and
>> we're OK with a chance that (2) might suggest a later name change), I
>> suggest we move forward with (1) now and separately pursue (2).
>> 
>> - Trent
>> 
>> 
>>> Brett McDowell  |  http://info.brettmcdowell.com  |  http://KantaraInitiative.org
>>> 
>>> On Nov 17, 2009, at 1:05 PM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Brett -
>>>> 
>>>> There are two questions we need to answer:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Is this list, as presented, ready for the BoT?
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Is there something additional along the lines
>>>>   of what Bob and others mentioned that we
>>>>   should nail down (e.g. an IPR guide)?
>>>> 
>>>> Even if we have consensus on (1), we may still want to form a committee
>>>> to work on (2)... unless no one's interested enough to take on the work.
>>>> 
>>>> - Trent
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Brett McDowell wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Maybe our emails passed each other in the ether.  I think we might be done.  Does anyone on LC object to the following re-naming that seems to have a consensus?  If not, I'm happy to put it before the Board this Thursday or adoption:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) Source Code CLA: Apache 2.0
>>>>> 2) Copyright: CC Share Alike with Attribution
>>>>> 3) Patent & Copyright: Reciprocal Royalty Free with Opt-Out to RAND
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Brett McDowell  |  http://info.brettmcdowell.com  |  http://KantaraInitiative.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Nov 17, 2009, at 11:59 AM, J. Trent Adams wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> All -
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It sounds like we're not ready for the BoT to approve an approach, but
>>>>>> that there's a lot of interest in following this up.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I propose forming a special committee of the LC to bring this idea home.
>>>>>> Otherwise, I fear we'll talk about this some more but it'll never come
>>>>>> to fruition as everyone expects someone else to be doing it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anyone willing to volunteer to lead the effort (Bob)? Assuming someone
>>>>>> can herd the troops, I'm guessing you'd receive willing participation
>>>>>> from Iain, Robin, and Eve to help flesh out an action plan. I assume
>>>>>> that Brett and his merry band of staffers would also be interested in
>>>>>> spending some time to help bring it home.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Anyone willing volunteers to sit on the committee?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - Trent
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Iain Henderson wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> agreed
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 17 Nov 2009, at 08:40, Robin Wilton wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think Bob has a point. If the list of options is to double in  
>>>>>>>> size, it becomes all the more important to give some indication of  
>>>>>>>> what the implications are of choosing a given alternative.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> We should bear in mind that people setting up a WG/DG are doing so  
>>>>>>>> for some purpose other than to spend time reading up on copyright  
>>>>>>>> law... and (with all respect to Conor) we explicitly expect some  
>>>>>>>> groups to be set up by people who don't have a legal team to refer  
>>>>>>>> to when making their choice. I note the comment that 'adding a brief  
>>>>>>>> description may put Kantara at risk of being accused of describing a  
>>>>>>>> given option misleadingly'. My view is that if we're not able to  
>>>>>>>> offer a brief description which explains the option in terms  
>>>>>>>> understandable to a non-lawyer (and a non-specialist in spec/IPR  
>>>>>>>> management), we probably shouldn't be offering that option. Either  
>>>>>>>> we should already have the skills accessible 'in-house' to come up  
>>>>>>>> with such a description, or we should have the means to get one from  
>>>>>>>> someone appropriate. I think that's exactly the kind of added value  
>>>>>>>> the Kantara 'umbrella organisation' should be aiming to provide, in  
>>>>>>>> order to attract projects which might otherwise go elsewhere.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Plus, of course, there's the matter of mitigating risk: the more  
>>>>>>>> clearly people are informed about the implications of choosing one  
>>>>>>>> IPR option rather than another, the less the risk that their group  
>>>>>>>> will generate IPR problems down the line.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yrs.,
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Bob Pinheiro wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> How does this help a new WG choose an appropriate IPR option? My  
>>>>>>>>> apologies if that's not the issue we're addressing here, but my two  
>>>>>>>>> cents is that it would be useful to have some sort of "IPR Guide"  
>>>>>>>>> for new WGs that would help them sort through the options.  So the  
>>>>>>>>> guide could say, "If the output of this WG is technical  
>>>>>>>>> specifications, these are the IPR options you can choose from, and  
>>>>>>>>> here are the implications of each one." The same could be repeated  
>>>>>>>>> if the output of the WG is whitepapers, or if it is software, or if  
>>>>>>>>> it is something else.  Although the same IPR option could possibly  
>>>>>>>>> be applicable for WGs having different types of outputs, today it's  
>>>>>>>>> not always clear how the same IPR option would apply to different  
>>>>>>>>> kinds of outputs.  For instance, the current Liberty Option says  
>>>>>>>>> that it is applicable "for development of Technical Specifications  
>>>>>>>>> or other output of a Work Group", but after that it only speaks to  
>>>>>>>>> technical specifications.  So it's not clear what the Liberty  
>>>>>>>>> Option means for a WG producing some other output such as  
>>>>>>>>> whitepapers, for instance.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Another thing that also isn't clear (to me anyway) is how to choose  
>>>>>>>>> an IPR option if a WG produces some combination of specifications,  
>>>>>>>>> whitepapers, software, or something else.  Presumably a WG can only  
>>>>>>>>> have one IPR option.  Some guidance on choosing an appropriate IPR  
>>>>>>>>> for such a WG would probably be helpful.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Brett McDowell wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> If/when that happens I'd expect the list of options to be like this:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 1) Source Code CLA: Apache 2.0
>>>>>>>>>> 2) Copyright: CC Share Alike with Attribution
>>>>>>>>>> 3) Patent & Copyright: Reciprocal Royalty Free with Opt-Out to RAND
>>>>>>>>>> -->[everything below this line is fiction, just to illustrate how  
>>>>>>>>>> we'd grow]
>>>>>>>>>> 4) Source Code CLA: GPL
>>>>>>>>>> 5) Copyright: Kantara Initiative All Rights Reserved
>>>>>>>>>> 6) Patent & Copyright: OWFa version 0.9
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Brett McDowell  |  http://info.brettmcdowell.com  |  http://KantaraInitiative.org
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 16, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Eve Maler wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> LC mailing list
>>>>>>>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>>>>>>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Iain Henderson
>>>>>>> iain.henderson at mydex.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This email and any attachment contains information which is private  
>>>>>>> and confidential and is intended for the addressee only. If you are  
>>>>>>> not an addressee, you are not authorised to read, copy or use the e- 
>>>>>>> mail or any attachment. If you have received this e-mail in error,  
>>>>>>> please notify the sender by return e-mail and then destroy it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> LC mailing list
>>>>>>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>>>>>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> J. Trent Adams
>>>>>> =jtrentadams
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
>>>>>> Internet Society
>>>>>> http://www.isoc.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> e) adams at isoc.org
>>>>>> o) 703-439-2149
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> LC mailing list
>>>>>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>>>>>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> J. Trent Adams
>>>> =jtrentadams
>>>> 
>>>> Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
>>>> Internet Society
>>>> http://www.isoc.org
>>>> 
>>>> e) adams at isoc.org
>>>> o) 703-439-2149
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> J. Trent Adams
>> =jtrentadams
>> 
>> Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
>> Internet Society
>> http://www.isoc.org
>> 
>> e) adams at isoc.org
>> o) 703-439-2149
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LC mailing list
>> LC at kantarainitiative.org
>> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc
> 
> 
> Eve Maler
> eve at xmlgrrl.com
> http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog
> 



More information about the LC mailing list