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

Colin Wallis Colin.Wallis at dia.govt.nz
Mon Nov 16 19:19:45 EST 2009


+1

From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Eve Maler
Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2009 1:12 p.m.
To: Bob Pinheiro
Cc: Leadership Council; Kantara BoT
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] [BoT] Proposed Change to the Intellectual Property Rights Policy

An IPR guide would be a great adjunct to the renaming. (Bill Smith once suggested to me that a "wizard" for choosing an IPR policy would be in order!  That would be cool indeed, and it would help eliminate policy options that don't provide support for the kinds of outputs a group is planning to produce.)  Such collateral could be created in a separate stream from this renaming process, however.

            Eve


On 16 Nov 2009, at 3:01 PM, 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://info.brettmcdowell.com/>  |  http://KantaraInitiative.org<http://KantaraInitiative.org/>



On Nov 16, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Eve Maler wrote:





Likin' that... (It does raise the question of whether more choices in each category are going to be needed sometime.)



  Eve



On 16 Nov 2009, at 2:05 PM, Brett McDowell wrote:





Ah, okay.  If that's the issue we could look at an alternative 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





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



On Nov 16, 2009, at 4:59 PM, Colin Wallis wrote:





I think it's pretty close, but I've wondered if CLA (Contributor License Agreement?) is sufficiently clear to folks (even when it is stated in full) ..



...or if we can find another generic descriptive term like the other two, as a preface...?





-----Original Message-----

From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org> [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Brett McDowell

Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2009 10:49 a.m.

To: Kantara BoT; Leadership Council

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



I'm following-up to see if LC had any more discussion about this or is the proposal below the latest, greatest proposed remedy to the issue?  Note: the Board of Trustees are meeting this week and if we have a solution to the problem we might ask them to ratify it on Thursday.



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



On Oct 1, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Eve Maler wrote:





I like Brett's direction.  We should definitely expect to get more options added as we go, and "classifying" them informally by what they actually cover makes sense.  And now, as the option list grows, I can also foresee a useful "matrix page" that sorts/explains them along these lines...



       Eve



On 1 Oct 2009, at 8:48 AM, Brett McDowell wrote:





I also think it makes sense to clarify that Apache 2.0 is a CLA, it's

really for open source projects and it's probably not going to be the

only CLA we have in the long-term.  In fact, given all the discussion

I've heard over the summer when WG's were trying to figure out which

IPR Policy to use, it might help to categorize them a bit at a

high-level to see what sort of animal each is.  So that might lead us

to:



1) CLA: Apache 2.0

2) Copyright: CC Share Alike with Attribution

3) Patent & Copyright: Reciprocal Royalty Free with Opt-Out to RAND



(Opt-Out is more accurate than "fall back to")



Longer titles, but... your thoughts?





Brett McDowell | http://info.brettmcdowell.com<http://info.brettmcdowell.com/> | http://kantarainitiative.org<http://kantarainitiative.org/>







On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Peter Davis <peter.davis at neustar.biz><mailto:peter.davis at neustar.biz> wrote:



On Oct 1, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Cahill, Conor P wrote:





I think that Apache 2.0 and Creative Commons are well known names within

legal teams... so you don't need to change those names.



Agree wrt Apache 2.

CC, on the other hand constitutes a suite of license options, one of which

is Share Alike with Attribution.  So some clarification would be helpful.





The problem is mostly around the "Liberty" name.   I do suggest we change

that to something along the lines of "Reciprocal RF with fallback to RAND"

as that makes it much easier for everyone to understand and they should get

why it's there as another option compared to the others as opposed to just

an extension of the Liberty legacy.



+1 for Reciprocal RF with fallback to RAND vs. Liberty



=peterd







Conor



From: trustees-bounces at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:trustees-bounces at kantarainitiative.org>

[mailto:trustees-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Brett McDowell

Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 11:13 AM

To: Paul Madsen

Cc: Leadership Council; Roger.Martin at corp.aol.com<mailto:Roger.Martin at corp.aol.com>; Kantara BoT

Subject: Re: [BoT] [KI-LC] Proposed Change to the Intellectual Property

Rights Policy



As a thought exercise, let's explore Paul's suggestion.



We might call the "Liberty Option" something like "Reciprocal Royalty

Free"



We might call "Creative Commons Option" something like... "Share Alike

w/Attribution" or "Free Derivative Copyright" or ???



We might call "Apache 2.0 Option" something like... "Software Contributors

Licensing Agreement" or "Software CLA"



Is that ultimately more helpful or more confusing?  I see it open the door

for disputing the title or claiming the title misrepresents the legal

obligations of the license.  It could muddy the waters.  That said, what do

you think... ?







Brett McDowell | http://info.brettmcdowell.com<http://info.brettmcdowell.com/> |

http://kantarainitiative.org<http://kantarainitiative.org/>





On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Paul Madsen <paulmadsen at rogers.com><mailto:paulmadsen at rogers.com>

wrote:

Why not use meaningful labels for the policies?



I forsee lots of 'Option C, now which one is that?'



paul



Roger Martin wrote:



To: BoT and LC



The Leadership Council has requested (LC Motion 2009-09-14-E, see

http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/x/DQATAg for further details) to

change the name of the IPR policy currently named "Option Liberty" to a name

that is more descriptive of the legal definitions within that policy.  The

LC has not suggested a new name, but has requested that the BoT make a

change.



Revision of the Kantara Initiative Intellectual Property Rights Policies

requires Supermajority approval of the Board of Trustees.  (see Article

7)..."Except where otherwise provided for in individual Articles herein,

this Intellectual Property Policies and the Options may only be altered,

amended, or repealed, and new Intellectual Property Policies and Options

adopted, upon approval by a Supermajority of the Board."



The Officers have discussed this request and have come to the

recommendation that a more generic change is in order.  It is proposed that

each individual IPR policy option in the Intellectual Property Rights

Policies document be given a generic name (e.g. Option A, Option B, Option

C, etc).  For each Option, a footnote would be included that explains the

source of the policy and the recommended uses of that policy.



Before actually preparing the specific changes, we have decided to open

this up for discussion among the BoT and LC members.



Do you have an opinion or recommendations regarding this issue?



...rogerM



--

******************************************

Roger Martin, Treasurer, Kantara Initiative

AOL

22260 Pacific Blvd    41A:A03

Dulles, VA 20166

email: roger.martin at corp.aol.com<mailto:roger.martin at corp.aol.com>

    AIM:       rjmartin99

    phone:  703-265-6203

    mobile: 703-389-1547

*******************************************





*******************************************











_______________________________________________

LC mailing list

LC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>

http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org











No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/>

Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.1/2407 - Release Date: 10/01/09

06:34:00







--

Paul Madsen

e:paulmadsen @ ntt-at.com<http://ntt-at.com>

m:613-282-8647

web:connectid.blogspot.com

<image001.gif>



_______________________________________________

Trustees mailing list

Trustees at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:Trustees at kantarainitiative.org>



http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees_kantarainitiative.org





_______________________________________________

Trustees mailing list

Trustees at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:Trustees at kantarainitiative.org>



http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/trustees_kantarainitiative.org



Peter Davis: Neustar, Inc.

Director & Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff

45980 Center Oak Plaza Sterling, VA 20166

[T] +1 571 434 5516 [E] peter.davis at neustar.biz<mailto:peter.davis at neustar.biz> [W]

http://www.neustar.biz/ [X] xri://@neustar*pdavis [X] xri://=peterd

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the

use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or

privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have

received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination,

distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have

received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and

delete the original message.









_______________________________________________

LC mailing list

LC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>

http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc_kantarainitiative.org



Eve Maler

eve at xmlgrrl.com<mailto:eve at xmlgrrl.com>

http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog





_______________________________________________

LC mailing list

LC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>

http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc

====

CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.

====



_______________________________________________

LC mailing list

LC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>

http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc



Eve Maler

eve at xmlgrrl.com<mailto:eve at xmlgrrl.com>

http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog







_______________________________________________

LC mailing list

LC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>

http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc








--

---------------------------

Bob Pinheiro

Chair, Consumer Identity WG

908-654-1939

kantara at bobpinheiro.com<mailto:kantara at bobpinheiro.com>

www.bobpinheiro.com<http://www.bobpinheiro.com/>
_______________________________________________
LC mailing list
LC at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:LC at kantarainitiative.org>
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/lc


Eve Maler
eve at xmlgrrl.com<mailto:eve at xmlgrrl.com>
http://www.xmlgrrl.com/blog


====
CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.
====
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20091117/c9ab1693/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the LC mailing list