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

J. Trent Adams adams at isoc.org
Tue Nov 17 11:59:42 EST 2009

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

Outreach Specialist, Trust & Identity
Internet Society

e) adams at isoc.org
o) 703-439-2149

More information about the LC mailing list