We should consider the option to move ontolog to oasis rather than do it 
ourselves
Sent from my Blackberry. Sorry for typos.  (01)
----- Original Message -----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
<ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: James Bryce Clark <jamie.clark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; [ontolog-forum] 
<ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tue May 06 09:38:00 2008
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontolog IPR issues  (02)
Peter,  (03)
The problem with IPR is similar to the age-old academics feuds of who came up 
with what first. You don't want to overly limit what can be brought into a 
discussion because hiding your head in the sand is rarely a useful approach. 
So what to do? For Ontolog, we exchange ideas and if anyone feels infringed 
upon, the recourse would seem to follow the traditional academic paths. If 
people feel there is a need to make disclosure statements that are readily 
available for others to find, we may need to consider such a process.  (04)
Ken  (05)
On May 6, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Peter Yim wrote:  (06)
 Ken,  (07)
 [KL] The major thing a SDO needs to worry that Ontolog 
fortunately
 does not ...  (08)
 [ppy] Yes ... Jamie Clark and I had exactly the same conversation
 just weeks ago. They (OASIS) run an SDO and We (Ontolog) only run a
 "tavern" ("drinking fountain" even)! ... :-)  (09)
 [KL] disclosure if there are known IPR encumbrances ...  (010)
 [ppy] good point ... I tend to side with not being sure if it is
 worth the effort (eve if it adds further clarity.)  (011)
 ... but does our clause: "those who are unable to contribute under the
 [open source, free software and open content] licensing arrangements
 should refrain from contributing to the [ontolog-forum] content"
 already cover that? ... i.e. people with material having other IPR
 encumbrances are also allowed to post to our CWE as open source, free
 software and open content (in a dual license mode, which is allowed.)  (012)
 By the way, this actually also allows us to warn people like Paola
 that her statement: "I am reserving right of first academic
 publication to publish in relevant journal" is actually inconsistent
 with the Ontolog IPR policy, and provides us the mandate to even
 remove that work from our CWE if her breach persists.  (013)
 Thanks & regards. =ppy
 --  (014)
 On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:  (015)
 The major thing a SDO needs to worry that Ontolog fortunately 
does not is
 the IPR status of standards that build on contributions to and 
deliberations
 of those organizations. The current mess really started when a 
contributor
 tried to assert IPR on a new spec they helped write.  (016)
 First, IANAL. That said, I think the Ontolog policy is 
generally clear and
 I would drop the OASIS reference because it is unclear what 
parts of the
 OASIS policy are applicable and how to interpret parts found to 
be
 insufficient by OASIS and later replaced.  (017)
 There is one area I would consider beefing up but I am by no 
means sure it
 is worth the effort: disclosure if there are known IPR 
encumbrances on
 contributed or recommended work. See  (018)
 http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php#disclosure or  (019)
 http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Disclosure for
 disclosure requirements for material leading to standards. 
With respect to
 Ontolog, this should only require a good faith relationship 
where no one
 hides relevant, non-obvious IPR claims. So, if you are talking 
about a
 commercial product, some licensing costs or other terms are 
expected and
 every mention of a product doesn't require a disclosure. 
However, if there
 are non-obvious encumbrances, then disclosure is warranted. I 
think the
 disclosure requirement is straightforward and the default 
assumption can be
 there is nothing known to disclose if a disclosure hasn't been 
made. That
 said, if a disclosure is made somewhere in an email thread, the 
question is
 whether that somehow has to be carried onward. I'm not sure 
it's worthwhile
 to craft the details if we don't have a real case to address, 
but it might
 be kept in mind should the situation arise.  (020)
 Ken  (021)
 On May 6, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Peter Yim wrote:  (022)
 Ken,  (023)
 [KL] I'm familiar (one might say *too* familiar) with the IPR 
rapids that
 W3C  (024)
 and OASIS continually attempt to navigate.  (025)
 [ppy] great! ... maybe you can give us some advice.  (026)
 [KL] If you believe the Ontolog policy
 covers enough ground, I would drop the reference to the OASIS 
deprecated
 policy.  (027)
 [ppy] good point. Homest answer: I am not sure ... but I trust 
the
 (then) OASIS process and policy (actually, I trust Jon Bosak, 
who was
 heavily involved with crafting it then, and of course, UBL 
chair,
 enough to default to that.) ... In your opinion, do you think 
the
 Ontolog IPR policy covers enough ground to allow us to safely 
drop the
 reference to the OASIS deprecated policy?  (028)
 Besides, it's not just the IPR policy, though, it's the entire 
process
 that I am certain, is much better thought out than what we 
could have
 done, at the time, for Ontolog (and, remembering that we were, 
after
 all, a UBL TC spin-off then.)  (029)
 There are other things that are ready for a face-lift too, like 
moving
 the reference to OPL v1.0 to a Creative Commons v3 license ... 
but, I
 (personal opinion) don't want to open this can of worms, as I 
see
 moves like that are only cosmetic, do not add value, and may 
create
 potential tensions that may just hurt the prevailing 
collaborative
 spirit without advancing our cause by one iota. ... Therefore, I
 suggest we hold-off until something breaks (which hasn't 
happened yet)
 or circumstances arise that forces us to revisit the matter.  (030)
 Thanks & regards. =ppy
 --  (031)
 On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
 Peter,  (032)
 I'm familiar (one might say *too* familiar) with the IPR rapids 
that W3C and
 OASIS continually attempt to navigate. The previous OASIS 
policy was found
 to be insufficient; hence, the new one. If you believe the 
Ontolog policy
 covers enough ground, I would drop the reference to the OASIS 
deprecated
 policy.  (033)
 Ken  (034)
 On May 6, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Peter Yim wrote:  (035)
 Ken,  (036)
 [KL] To which
 of the three choices I listed in my previous email do our 
processes point?  (037)
 [ppy] that would be your: (1) refer to the policy in place when
 Ontolog was reconstituted.
 The clarification I put in pegs the default to the OASIS IPR 
Policy in
 place as of 23-Sep-2002.  (038)
 [KL] Also, the OASIS IPR policy requires "At the time a TC is 
chartered, the
 proposal to form the TC must specify the IPR Mode under which 
the Technical
 Committee will operate."  (039)
 [ppy] I believe this is only put in place (by OASIS ... Jamie, 
or
 someone familiar with this, please correct me if I got it 
wrong) AFTER
 OASIS has offered a choice of IPR modes (which wasn't in place 
until
 after 23-Sep-2002.)  (040)
 Anyhow that is moot because, Ontolog ONLY defaults to the OASIS 
policy
 and process IF there is no clearly specified ONTOLOG policy and
 process, but we (Ontolog) actually do have a clearly specified 
IPR
 Policy, as in 
http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32  (041)
 Thanks & regards. =ppy
 --  (042)
 On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
 Peter,  (043)
 I'm not familiar with the processes defined in our 
reconstitution. To which
 of the three choices I listed in my previous email do our 
processes point?  (044)
 Also, the OASIS IPR policy requires "At the time a TC is 
chartered, the
 proposal to form the TC must specify the IPR Mode under which 
the Technical
 Committee will operate." See  (045)
 http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php#tcformation. Should
 Ontolog declare under which mode it intends to operate? If 
not, it is
 unclear which parts of the OASIS IPR policy come into play.  (046)
 Ken  (047)
 On May 6, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Peter Yim wrote:  (048)
 Thank you very much for pointing that out, Ken.  (049)
 I will make the following clarification, changing the bullet in 
question -  (050)
 To:
 "when in doubt, IPR matters relating to the [ontolog-forum] 
default
 to the OASIS IPR policy (effective as of 23-September-2002; in
 accordance with the processes defined in our reconstitution of
 September 2002.)"  (051)
 From:
 "when in doubt, IPR matters relating to the [ontolog-forum] 
default
 to the OASIS IPR policy (in accordance with the processes 
defined in
 our reconstitution of September 2002.)"  (052)
 Thanks & regards. =ppy
 --  (053)
 On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
 Note that OASIS revised its IPR policy effective 1 October 
2005. See
 http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php. It 
should be made
 clear whether we (1) refer to the policy in place when Ontolog 
was
 reconstituted, (2) explicitly acknowledge the current policy, 
or (3) default
 to changes in the OASIS policy as these become effective.  (054)
 Ken  (055)
 On May 5, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Peter P. Yim wrote:  (056)
 o when in doubt, IPR matters relating to the  (057)
 [ontolog-forum] default to the OASIS IPR policy (in accordance  (058)
 with the processes defined in our reconstitution of September  (059)
 2002.) (35)  (060)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ken Laskey
 MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
 7151 Colshire Drive fax: 
703-983-1379
 McLean VA 22102-7508  (061)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Ken Laskey
 MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
 7151 Colshire Drive fax: 
703-983-1379
 McLean VA 22102-7508  (062)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
7151 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508  (063)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  (064)