So we are good to go! thanks, dims
On 12/7/06, Alex Boisvert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Great stuff! Thanks Cliff and Matthieu for your efforts! alex On 12/7/06, Matthieu Riou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > We've finally got an answer about the intellectual property issues > surrounding the WS-BPEL specification. And it's pretty good news! Cliff > Schmidt has posted it on legal-discuss. As everybody probably isn't > subscribed to this mailing list, I'm pasting his reply here: > > - None of the published licenses on the OASIS BPEL IPR page would be > acceptable to the ASF. Some of the licenses have several issues; but > one example is that they do not allow us to sublicense the rights to > our users, nor do they allow our downstream users to become licensees > without contacting the patent owner and signing a contract. There > are other issues, but that's the easiest to describe right now. > - However, it does not appear that any of the statements claim any > *issued* patents that we would need to license. IBM lists three > patent applications (each in various intl jurisdictions); they have > not updated the statement to say anything is issued and after doing a > quick check of the various patent application databases, I don't > believe any of them have. > - If any of these companies (or anyone else in the world) was to > inform the ASF that they now had an issued patent that they would > license only under such terms as posted on the OASIS site, we would > (if we believe the patent to be valid, infringed, and enforceable) > have to either a) invent around the patent, b) shut down the project, > or c) convince the company to offer us more acceptable terms. > - Until that time, I see no reason why ODE should not be able to > continue its usual development. However, prior to a release, I would > suggest that the project send an email to each company that claims to > have an essential patent pending (e.g. not BEA) and simply inform > them that we are unaware of any issued patent in this space and are > therefore continuing to make and distribute implementations of the > specs. I've already sent an email to Microsoft about these specs, > asking them if they will include the spec under the OSP (http:// > www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx), which is acceptable to > the ASF. > > Brief Historical Note: > This looks similar to the WS-Security situation we had a year ago or > so. No entity was claiming to have issued patents, although some > claimed to have published and unpublished applications. The licenses > offered for these potential patents were not acceptable to the ASF; > but at that time, there was nothing to license. IIRC, we (Dims as WS > PMC chair; Sam Ruby from the board; and me, as legal guy) decided > (with advice from counsel) that we would not stop WS-Security from > releasing, but that this indeed might have to be the case one day if > someone came to us with an issued patent and a license that looked > like what was published at the time. Since that time, Microsoft (one > of the spec authors making an IPR statement on WS-Security) has > introduced the OSP (based, in large part, on our input), which now > covers (WS-Security). However, I don't believe we have seen any > revised licenses or notifications of issued patents from anyone else. > > Cliff > >
-- Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers)
