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

Brett McDowell email at brettmcdowell.com
Tue Nov 17 12:07:56 EST 2009

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

More information about the LC mailing list