OASIS Emergency Management TC

Renato and others, 


The EM-TC has discussed the IPR transition of the TC in several calls
over the last 6 months.  Jamie has also been present to explain the
different modes.  We decided on the mode during a call when Mary
McRae of OASIS was on the call to answer any specific questions.  I
know there are several minutes that have not yet been published and will
look into that. 


We covered it again today just be sure everyone understood and it will be
documented in the minutes of todays meeting.  During our discussions
over the months, all TC members expressed an interest in keeping the work
of the TC as open and free as possible.  The choice the TC agreed to
is RF on RAND as described on the OASIS site at

http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php.  This mode
requires anyone submitting information to the TC that may have IP claims
to be fully disclosed as such to the group.  The group can then
chose to include it or not.  The consensus of the TC membership now
is that we would not accept any IP to be included in our work
products. 


I hope this helps and apologize for the meeting notes not being published
on this matter.  Thanks for your continued participation.


Sincerely,

Elysa Jones, Chair

OASIS EM-TC

Engineering Program Manager

Warning Systems, Inc.


At 06:43 PM 10/3/2006, Renato Iannella wrote:

I noticed in the Sep 19th EM-TC
Teleconference minutes (released today) it said:


"Art said that he hadn�t seen any discussion of how the TC arrived
at its selected IPR policy. He asked that Elysa send a note to the list
expanding on the implications of the selected policy, including the notes
for the meeting at which it was approved."


????


Renato



On 3 Oct 2006, at 22:16, Mary McRae wrote:


To:  TC
Qualified Members of the Emergency Management TC

cc:  Other TC members



    The OASIS Emergency Management TC has
conducted a Transition Approval Ballot under the rules provided by the
OASIS IPR Transition Policy [1]. The ballot results are visible to OASIS
members at [2]. The ballot to apply the current (2005) OASIS IPR Policy
to the TC's operations, and adopt the "RF on RAND" IPR mode,
was APPROVED. As a result, the TC will start operating under that policy
and mode on 17 October 2006, which is 14 days from the date of this
notice. That date will be the TC's Transition Effective Date under the
IPR Transition Policy. This message is your Approval Notification under
that policy.



    Please note:



   1.  The obligations of OASIS members who
serve as TC members under the 2005 OASIS IPR Policy [3] are different, in
some ways, from those under the prior policy. Please review the 2005
policy so that you are clear about the licensing and disclosure
obligations associated with the TC after the TC Transition Effective
Date.



    2.  OASIS staff will announce the TC
Transition Effective Date and the TC's new IPR Mode to members in the
same manner as a charter amendment.



Regards,



Mary



---------------------------------------------------

Mary P McRae

Manager of TC Administration, OASIS

mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org">mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org




[1]

http://www.oasis-open.org/who/ipr/ipr_transition_policy.php

[2]

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ballot.php?id=1116

[3]



http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php



 


Cheers...  Renato Iannella

National ICT Australia (NICTA)





--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain
legally
privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete
both
messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or
unauthorised
amendment. This notice should not be removed.

On 4 Oct 2006, at 11:43, Elysa Jones wrote:

We covered it again today just be sure everyone understood and it will be documented in the minutes of todays meeting.  During our discussions over the months, all TC members expressed an interest in keeping the work of the TC as open and free as possible.  The choice the TC agreed to is RF on RAND as described on the OASIS site at http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php. This mode requires anyone submitting information to the TC that may have IP claims to be fully disclosed as such to the group.  The group can then chose to include it or not.  The consensus of the TC membership now is that we would not accept any IP to be included in our work products.  

I just really want to know why "RF and RAND" was chosen over "RF on Limited Terms"?

It seems to me that the latter is (slightly) "open and freer" than the former??

 
Cheers...  Renato Iannella
National ICT Australia (NICTA)

 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
amendment. This notice should not be removed.

I may be wrong, but as I recall from an earlier briefing, "Limited 
Terms" allows the party with IPR encumbrance for their donations to 
"set" their terms, which means it opens the door to "lawyering" which 
is one of those proverbial "slippery slopes," while RAND has more 
specifically spelled out terms. However, had I had more time to 
attend the meeting when this was decided, I would have asked Jamie if 
the TC had the leeway to suggest (and set policy to enforce) the 
exact language of what "Limited Terms" could mean in relation to our 
TC, which might have given us the option of "closing" that 
"lawyering" door.

Cheers,
Rex

At 2:59 PM +1000 10/4/06, Renato Iannella wrote:
>On 4 Oct 2006, at 11:43, Elysa Jones wrote:
>
>>We covered it again today just be sure everyone understood and it 
>>will be documented in the minutes of todays meeting.  During our 
>>discussions over the months, all TC members expressed an interest 
>>in keeping the work of the TC as open and free as possible.  The 
>>choice the TC agreed to is RF on RAND as described on the OASIS 
>>site at http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php. 
>>This mode requires anyone submitting information to the TC that may 
>>have IP claims to be fully disclosed as such to the group.  The 
>>group can then chose to include it or not.  The consensus of the TC 
>>membership now is that we would not accept any IP to be included in 
>>our work products. 
>>
>
>I just really want to know why "RF and RAND" was chosen over "RF on 
>Limited Terms"?
>
>It seems to me that the latter is (slightly) "open and freer" than 
>the former??
>
>Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>National ICT Australia (NICTA)
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain legally
>privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
>use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
>recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
>messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
>data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
>amendment. This notice should not be removed.


-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309

I also participated in the conference calls in which the IPR transition
policy was discussed and approved.

If anyone is interested, there is a great editorial on standards, IPR, and
IPR policies http://consortiuminfo.org/ipr/ . This editorial was written
by Andy Updegrove, an internationally recognized guru on IPR policies for
use by standards bodies/consortia. He is also OGC's legal counsel :-)

Anyway, all the work of the OGC to date has been RAND-RF. The OGC IPR
policy does not even recognize the the use of RF-Limited for the reasons
that Rex has pointed out.

Cheers

Carl



> I may be wrong, but as I recall from an earlier briefing, "Limited
> Terms" allows the party with IPR encumbrance for their donations to
> "set" their terms, which means it opens the door to "lawyering" which
> is one of those proverbial "slippery slopes," while RAND has more
> specifically spelled out terms. However, had I had more time to
> attend the meeting when this was decided, I would have asked Jamie if
> the TC had the leeway to suggest (and set policy to enforce) the
> exact language of what "Limited Terms" could mean in relation to our
> TC, which might have given us the option of "closing" that
> "lawyering" door.
>
> Cheers,
> Rex
>
> At 2:59 PM +1000 10/4/06, Renato Iannella wrote:
>>On 4 Oct 2006, at 11:43, Elysa Jones wrote:
>>
>>>We covered it again today just be sure everyone understood and it
>>>will be documented in the minutes of todays meeting.  During our
>>>discussions over the months, all TC members expressed an interest
>>>in keeping the work of the TC as open and free as possible.  The
>>>choice the TC agreed to is RF on RAND as described on the OASIS
>>>site at http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php.
>>>This mode requires anyone submitting information to the TC that may
>>>have IP claims to be fully disclosed as such to the group.  The
>>>group can then chose to include it or not.  The consensus of the TC
>>>membership now is that we would not accept any IP to be included in
>>>our work products.
>>>
>>
>>I just really want to know why "RF and RAND" was chosen over "RF on
>>Limited Terms"?
>>
>>It seems to me that the latter is (slightly) "open and freer" than
>>the former??
>>
>>Cheers...  Renato Iannella
>>National ICT Australia (NICTA)
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>This email and any attachments may be confidential. They may contain
>> legally
>>privileged information or copyright material. You should not read, copy,
>>use or disclose them without authorisation. If you are not an intended
>>recipient, please contact us at once by return email and then delete both
>>messages. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
>>data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
>>amendment. This notice should not be removed.
>
>
> --
> Rex Brooks
> President, CEO
> Starbourne Communications Design
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> Berkeley, CA 94702
> Tel: 510-849-2309
>

On 4 Oct 2006, at 21:30, Rex Brooks wrote:

> I may be wrong, but as I recall from an earlier briefing, "Limited  
> Terms" allows the party with IPR encumbrance for their donations to  
> "set" their terms, which means it opens the door to "lawyering"  
> which is one of those proverbial "slippery slopes," while RAND has  
> more specifically spelled out terms.

This is the "confusing" bit between sections 10.2.2 and 10.2.3 of the  
IPR policy [1].

10.2.2 (RF on RAND Terms) says that license terms *BEYOND* the common  
terms may be included.

10.2.3 (RF on Limited Terms) says that parties *MAY NOT* impose any  
further conditions.

Given this interpretation, the latter option seems better.

Jamie - have I interpreted this correctly?

Cheers...  Renato Iannella
National ICT Australia (NICTA)

[1]