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

J. Trent Adams adams at isoc.org
Thu Dec 3 11:46:54 EST 2009


Brett and Ken -

It'll also help, though, that we have reasonable short hand versions we
can use when referencing them (akin to the short handlers we use for WG
names).

- Trent


Brett McDowell wrote:
> 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
>>     
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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




More information about the LC mailing list