License for the Service Data Objects JavaDoc and Interface Definition files

[todd.glassey at att.net]

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 at rosenlaw.com>
> Question sent originally to license-discuss at opensource.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/developerworks/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-wg at ietf.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-general at open-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:goossen at roguewave.com] 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 3:02 PM
> > To: license-discuss at opensource.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-wg at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg