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

Eve Maler eve at xmlgrrl.com
Tue Nov 17 13:46:31 EST 2009


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



More information about the LC mailing list