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

Brett McDowell email at brettmcdowell.com
Tue Nov 17 13:08:28 EST 2009


+1 to forming a committee to work on #2, but that doesn't need to hold-up the IPR Policy revision does it?

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
> 
> 



More information about the LC mailing list