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

Brett McDowell email at brettmcdowell.com
Thu Dec 3 11:34:09 EST 2009


Good point.  I think Colin is going to be drafting an eBallot or at least a proposed motion for the next LC call and sending that out to this list.  This is good input for him as he drafts that proposal.

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

On Dec 3, 2009, at 11:17 AM, Salzberg, Kenneth M wrote:

> I would strongly suggest that whatever we use for the names of the IPR policies, that we do NOT use acronyms.
> Please spell it out.
> 
> Ken Salzberg,  Technology Manager
> Integrated Platforms Research, Intel Labs
> ken.salzberg at intel.com   503.264.8276   JF2-58
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Brett McDowell
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 4:08 PM
> To: Leadership Council
> Subject: Re: [KI-LC] [BoT] Proposed Change to the Intellectual Property Rights Policy
> 
> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LC mailing list
> LC at kantarainitiative.org
> http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc



More information about the LC mailing list