Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Sam Ruby asked:
>
>>Do we have a formal definition that we can employ for the term "open
>>standards"?
>
> Here's my try at a definition of "open standards" in the form of five Open
> Standards Principles. These were first proposed at the conference of the
> Open Standards Alliance in Phoenix last year. John Terpstra is organizing
> that OSA activity. I welcome your feedback on these principles.
>
> Open Standards Principles
>
> 1. Everyone is free to copy and distribute the official
> specification for an open standard under an open source
> license.
>
> 2. Everyone is free to make or use embodiments of an open
> standard under unconditional licenses to patent claims
> necessary to practice that standard.
>
> 3. Everyone is free to distribute externally, sell, offer
> for sale, have made or import embodiments of an open
> standard under patent licenses that may be conditioned
> only on reciprocal licenses to any of licensees’ patent
> claims necessary to practice that standard.
>
> 4. A patent license for an open standard may be terminated
> as to any licensee who sues the licensor or any other
> licensee for infringement of patent claims necessary to
> practice that standard.
>
> 5. All patent licenses necessary to practice an open standard
> are worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual and
> sublicenseable.
I see an understandable focus on patents. However, patents are but one
way in which standards may be encumbered.
My concern is that this is a different bar than Apache has been
(informally) operating under in the past. Two specific differences are
immediately apparent, both with examples from the JCP (the
specifications relevant to the Apache implementations I have most been
concerned about).
1) We have not previously concerned ourselves with the freedom to obtain
or copy the specification itself. For an example, try downloading the
specification for:
http://java.sun.com/xml/downloads/jaxrpc.html
2) We have previously rejected requirements to carry forward
requirements of compatibility and branding:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07824.html
My intent of raising these concerns is *not* to reopen the prior
discussions, but rather to ensure that the positions we are now
considering are not unnecessarily incompatible with the ways in which we
have operated in the past.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
