MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
oasis-member-discuss message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [chairs] Is "Defensive RF" the answer to the OASIS IPR impasse?
> So I'm not sure that the new IPR is less "messy" than the old!? It's
> more perscribing - but that appears to be in a negative way that does
> not solve the issues we are seeing here. If a TC wants to simplify
> this all by chartering its work as specifically RF-based as a term of
> participatation and acceptance of contributions - right now we cannot.
David,
the above statement indicates to me that you have not really read the
new IPR policy. I would really like to encourage you to do so, since
if you did you would discover that by contributing to or participating
in, for instance, an RF on Limited Terms TC, you would be incurring
legally binding obligations to license whatever needs to be licensed
on a strictly RF basis. Thus, your assertion that "If a TC wants to simplify
this all by chartering its work as specifically RF-based as a term of
participatation and acceptance of contributions" is contrary to fact;
all the TC has to do is to declare *in its charter* that it's an
RF mode based TC. That triggers all the necessary obligations that
apply to contributors and participants; and it also triggers the
character of the obligation that those who send comments to that
TC must agree to abide by in order for the comments to actually make
it to the comments list, thus preventing the contamination of an
RF TC, for instance, with RAND contributions.
Please do read the policy; it can be found at
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php
Thanks!
On 05/08/2006 11:49 AM, David RR Webber (XML) wrote:
> Gabe,
>
> I agree that OASIS can do more here.
>
> Right now we're caught in no-mans-land as TC chairs - where we are being
> asked to sign-on to IPR policies that appear to not be in-line with the
> needs of our work and members vision, while at the same time being
> hand-cuffed in not being able to mitigate that by clarifications at the
> TC level to participants.
>
> If we had tools like sample IPR contribution agreement templates (such
> as defensive RF, RF) that we can present to participants up front - then
> as you rightly note - the likelihood is that their respective legal
> departments will apply something close to that. Instead when you throw
> it open - you end up with legal imposing something that is at odds with
> the spirit and mission because their frame of reference is narrowed just
> to that company view.
>
> So I'm not sure that the new IPR is less "messy" than the old!? It's
> more perscribing - but that appears to be in a negative way that does
> not solve the issues we are seeing here. If a TC wants to simplify
> this all by chartering its work as specifically RF-based as a term of
> participatation and acceptance of contributions - right now we cannot.
> Thanks, DW
>
>
>