Just prompting for any final feedback by Friday of this week. So far (and not surprisingly) it's been pretty quiet. I have received some off-line feedback that the license grant option seems like a good add. Olivier also suggested a "layman's faq to the OSLC legal terms" which I've added to my to-do list.
Thanks and happy new year...Scott [email protected] wrote on 12/09/2010 12:42:41 PM: > From: Scott Bosworth/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > To: [email protected] > Date: 12/09/2010 12:43 PM > Subject: [oslc] License grant option in addition to covenant > Sent by: [email protected] > > When it comes to IP matters, OSLC workgroup participants (typically > their employers) agree to two things today: > > (1) that contributions to the community are made under a Creative > Commons copyright license, and > (2) to make an IP Covenant (a promise) not to file patent claims > against implementations of an OSLC specification > > These things in combination allow for a free flowing specification > authoring process and a tangible form of encouragement of OSLC spec > implementations. > > One of our community members shared with me that his company is not > accustomed to the IP Covenant legal approach and prefer instead to > make a specific license grant to implementers of OSLC > specifications. To address the concern, I worked with folks from > that company and with my IBM colleague and IP attorney Dan > McLoughlin to draft language that would allow workgroup participants > to either (a) make the IP Covenant as has been our standard practice > to date, or (b) provide a no-charge, royalty-free license grant > covering any IP necessary to implement an OSLC specification. Dan's > proposed license grant language is linked to below [1]. You'll note > that the language and substance are largely the same as that of the Covenant. > > Now that we have a draft, I'd like to open it up to the community > for comment. I'll take any feedback on the license grant language > between now and the end of the year. Feel free to send me that > feedback directly via e-mail. Barring any major issues, I'm > proposing to summarize the feedback and add the final language as an > option, alongside the Covenant, to the OSLC terms of use in the > first week of January. The new option won't come into play for any > current specs/covenant documents, however workgroup participants who > are involved in future specs can decide to continue to make use of > the IP Covenant or instead make use of the License Grant. > > One last thought - I'm not sure that either option is "better" or > "preferred" -- that's really up to individual workgroup participants > to decide in consultation with their legal experts and in context of > their organization's practices. That said, both of these legal > approaches/tools offer the kind of assurances intended to encourage > OSLC spec implementations. I'm happy that we can introduce this > option. Thanks...Scott > > [1] http://open-services.net/bin/view/Main/OslcLicenseGrantDRAFT > Scott Bosworth | IBM Rational CTO Team | [email protected] | 919.486.2197 (w) | 919.244.3387(m) | 919.254.5271(f)
