You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> on 2006/10/15 04:58:31 UTC
RE: [BPEL] Validity of a BPEL implementation at Apache
This appears to be purely informational. If there is an action item, please
advise.
--- Noel
-----Original Message-----
From: matthieu.riou@gmail.com [mailto:matthieu.riou@gmail.com]On Behalf Of
Matthieu Riou
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 16:27
To: legal-discuss@apache.org
Subject: [BPEL] Validity of a BPEL implementation at Apache
Hi,
I'm starting this thread to assess whether it's acceptable to have an
Apache implementation of the BPEL4WS and WS-BPEL specifications. Apache Ode
is a project undergoing incubation having exactly this goal (
http://incubator.apache.org/ode) and we would like to know what's our status
regarding the IP of each these specifications.
BPEL4WS (versions 1.0 and 1.1) has originally been written by Microsoft,
IBM, Siebel, SAP and BEA Systems. It has then been donated to the Oasis
group to continue the development of the specification and renamed WS-BPEL
(version 2.0 in public review now). The following page lists statements made
by all the stakeholders for BPEL4WS 1.1:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbpel/ipr.php
Since then, all the work done on the spec (changes for WS-BPEL 2.0) falls
under the Oasis IPR policy:
http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php
It's unclear to me how the IPRs for BPEL4WS 1.1 impacts those of WS-BPEL
2.0.
I'm going to start a separate thread for each company linking to (or
directly including) their specific IPR documents to allow discussion for
each of them. There's also a summary available here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/ODExSITE/bpel-ip.html
Thanks a lot for your help,
Matthieu Riou
Re: [BPEL] Validity of a BPEL implementation at Apache
Posted by Cliff Schmidt <cl...@apache.org>.
On 10/14/06, Matthieu Riou <mr...@apache.org> wrote:
> The action item is underlined by the e-mail below I think. It's to
ascertain
> whether all of the IPR definitions submitted by each of the party
involved
> in BPEL is acceptable for the ASF. I sent a separate e-mail for
each IPR
> statement submitted to the BPEL TC to allow separate discussion
for each of
> these (dims asked to send it this way, I think he has some
experience with
> this process).
Matthieu,
Rather than responding to each of the separate threads that you
started, I think it makes more sense for me to provide overall
information, history and suggestions in one place.
- 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
> On 10/14/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > This appears to be purely informational. If there is an action
item,
> please advise.
> >
> > --- Noel
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: matthieu.riou@gmail.com [mailto:matthieu.riou@gmail.com]On
Behalf Of
> Matthieu Riou
> > Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 16:27
> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> > Subject: [BPEL] Validity of a BPEL implementation at Apache
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm starting this thread to assess whether it's acceptable to
have an
> Apache implementation of the BPEL4WS and WS-BPEL specifications.
Apache Ode
> is a project undergoing incubation having exactly this goal (
> http://incubator.apache.org/ode) and we would like to know what's
our status
> regarding the IP of each these specifications.
> >
> > BPEL4WS (versions 1.0 and 1.1) has originally been written by
Microsoft,
> IBM, Siebel, SAP and BEA Systems. It has then been donated to the
Oasis
> group to continue the development of the specification and renamed
WS-BPEL
> (version 2.0 in public review now). The following page lists
statements made
> by all the stakeholders for BPEL4WS 1.1:
> >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbpel/ipr.php
> >
> > Since then, all the work done on the spec (changes for WS-BPEL
2.0) falls
> under the Oasis IPR policy:
> >
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php
> >
> > It's unclear to me how the IPRs for BPEL4WS 1.1 impacts those of
WS-BPEL
> 2.0.
> >
> > I'm going to start a separate thread for each company linking to
(or
> directly including) their specific IPR documents to allow
discussion for
> each of them. There's also a summary available here:
> >
> > http://cwiki.apache.org/ODExSITE/bpel-ip.html
> >
> >
> > Thanks a lot for your help,
> >
> > Matthieu Riou
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: [BPEL] Validity of a BPEL implementation at Apache
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> The action item is underlined by the e-mail below I think.
Sorry. I got into a pattern, and missed that one of the e-mails was
different. Cliff usually does the moderation for legal, but he'd missed
these and I was catching up.
Please note that this list is for somewhat open discussion, with public
archives. If you want something more official, you'll probably want these
raised on the internal, closed, list.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: [BPEL] Validity of a BPEL implementation at Apache
Posted by Matthieu Riou <mr...@apache.org>.
The action item is underlined by the e-mail below I think. It's to ascertain
whether all of the IPR definitions submitted by each of the party involved
in BPEL is acceptable for the ASF. I sent a separate e-mail for each IPR
statement submitted to the BPEL TC to allow separate discussion for each of
these (dims asked to send it this way, I think he has some experience with
this process).
Thanks,
Matthieu
On 10/14/06, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>
> This appears to be purely informational. If there is an action item,
> please advise.
>
> --- Noel
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* matthieu.riou@gmail.com [mailto:matthieu.riou@gmail.com]*On Behalf
> Of *Matthieu Riou
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 05, 2006 16:27
> *To:* legal-discuss@apache.org
> *Subject:* [BPEL] Validity of a BPEL implementation at Apache
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm starting this thread to assess whether it's acceptable to have an
> Apache implementation of the BPEL4WS and WS-BPEL specifications. Apache Ode
> is a project undergoing incubation having exactly this goal (
> http://incubator.apache.org/ode) and we would like to know what's our
> status regarding the IP of each these specifications.
>
> BPEL4WS (versions 1.0 and 1.1) has originally been written by Microsoft,
> IBM, Siebel, SAP and BEA Systems. It has then been donated to the Oasis
> group to continue the development of the specification and renamed WS-BPEL
> (version 2.0 in public review now). The following page lists statements
> made by all the stakeholders for BPEL4WS 1.1:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wsbpel/ipr.php
>
> Since then, all the work done on the spec (changes for WS-BPEL 2.0) falls
> under the Oasis IPR policy:
>
> http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php
>
> It's unclear to me how the IPRs for BPEL4WS 1.1 impacts those of WS-BPEL
> 2.0.
>
> I'm going to start a separate thread for each company linking to (or
> directly including) their specific IPR documents to allow discussion for
> each of them. There's also a summary available here:
>
> http://cwiki.apache.org/ODExSITE/bpel-ip.html
>
>
> Thanks a lot for your help,
>
> Matthieu Riou
>
>