Larry
The only problem with this license grant is that this is way
more than is necessary for the creation of a standard, and
involves giving the commercial rights to the protocol away.
Is the intent of the IETF to change its processes so that
they mandate that individuals MUST give the IETF their
protocol? if not what specifically is the scope required for
the IETF's Standards Process...
Todd Glassey, IP Owner.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen rosenlaw.com>
> Question sent originally to license-discussopensource.org:
> > This license states:
> >
> > Permission to copy, make derivative works of, and
distribute
> > the Service Data Objects JavaDoc and Interface
Definition
> > Files files in any medium without fee or royalty
as part of a
> > compliant implementation of the Service Data
Objects
> > Specification is hereby granted.
> >
> > My question is who determines what is a
"compliant
> > implementation"? What is the remedy if the
implementation in
> > which it is used turns out to be
> > non-compliant?
>
> Hi David,
>
> Usually independent standards organizations publish
such specifications. Is
> this the document relating to the "IBM and BEA
Joint Specifications"
> published at
> http://www-128.ibm.com/developerwork
s/library/specification/j-commonj-sdowmt
> /? (I did a Google search on your email subject and
that was the first hit.)
> If so, I presume that IBM and BEA set their own
"standard" and their
> published specification itself will define conformance.
Do they define
> conformance in their documents or on their website
anywhere? If not, it
> might be safest to assume that they would define
compliance as "an exact
> implementation of the specification." However, is
such a requirement for
> "conformance" logically consistent with the
permission to create "derivative
> works?" As your question indicates, the license
terms (as you quoted them)
> are a little sloppy.
>
> I've argued before that limitations on creating
non-conforming
> implementations of published industry standards cannot
be based on copyright
> as long as those modifications are for *functional*
effects, because
> function cannot be restricted through copyright. (See
17 USC 102(b), and
> take a look at cases on the "merger
doctrine.") Some lawyers don't agree
> with me, as usual.  So we have
to leave that for possible litigation and
> a court decision someday.
>
> We all agree, though, that patents can prevent
non-conforming
> implementations, if a patent owner is willing to sue
for infringement. So
> patents are the second problem with the license you
quoted. If anyone (IBM,
> BEA?) has patents reading on the standard, they are not
explicitly granting
> you a patent license to make, use, sell, have made,
offer for sale, or
> import software (copies *or* derivative works)
embodying those patents.
> That's another reason why I think the license terms you
quoted are sloppy.
>
> This is a hot topic in standards organizations
nowadays. For example,
> there's an effort underway in IETF to revise their IP
policies to license
> copyrights and patents such that implementers are free
to create derivative
> works, but some of the industry participants on the
IETF IPR discussion list
> are resisting the pleas of the open source advocates
there. Unless standards
> organizations take steps to license copyrights and
patents for both copies
> and derivative works, and list in their licenses all
the rights associated
> with copyrights and patents, we may have to assume that
some copyright and
> patent owners allow only exactly conforming
implementations. That's not open
> source.
>
> Implementers of open standards should demand more
rights, and more clarity,
> from their licensors.
>
> /Larry Rosen
>
> P.S. I'm cross-posting this email to the IETF
ipr-wgietf.org email list,
> although I doubt the particular standard you referenced
is one of theirs.
> The topic is current, though. I'm also cross-posting to
> discuss-generalopen-bar.org, a new discussion list for
attorneys interested
> in open source issues. I put their email addresses in
BCC so that each
> discussion group stays separate in replies.
>
> ** Lawrence Rosen
> ** Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices
> ** Stanford University School of Law, Lecturer in Law
> ** 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> ** 707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
> ** Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software
Freedom
> ** and Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice
Hall 2004)
> ** [www.rosenlaw.com]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Goossen [mailto:goossenroguewave.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:02 PM
> > To: license-discussopensource.org
> > Subject: License for the Service Data Objects
JavaDoc and
> > Interface Definition files
> >
> > This license states:
> >
> > Permission to copy, make derivative works of, and
distribute
> > the Service Data Objects JavaDoc and Interface
Definition
> > Files files in any medium without fee or royalty
as part of a
> > compliant implementation of the Service Data
Objects
> > Specification is hereby granted.
> >
> > My question is who determines what is a
"compliant
> > implementation"? What is the remedy if the
implementation in
> > which it is used turns out to be
> > non-compliant?
> >
> >
> > David F. Goossen
> > Rogue Wave Software
> > a QUOVADX(tm) division
> > 5500 Flatiron Parkway
> > Boulder, CO 80027
> > Phone: 303-545-3166
> > Fax: 303-545-3061
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ipr-wg mailing list
> Ipr-wgietf.org
> https:/
/www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg
|