Fwd: Licensing lssues for Small Vendors

fyi

>Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:58:15 +0000
>To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org, jevdemon@microsoft.com
>From: Howard N Smith <howard.smith@ontology.org>
>Subject: Licensing lssues for Small Vendors
>Cc: UCorda@SeeBeyond.com, steve@enigmatec.net
>
>John,
>
>Can any BPEL primary author on this list give any reason why licenses are required and what possible purpose can 
>they have in the development of a standard? 
>
>Steve R-T wrote:
>
>>like many small companies and some big ones too we are interested in getting product out based on BPEL4WS1.1. 
>>Let's call it a teaser for the real thing. We rely, as a smaller company, on being fleet of foot. Alas the problems with 
>>licensing BPEL4WS1.1 so that we are in the clear (and when you are small this is so very important) reduce our ability 
>>to be fleet of foot. Our customers, having been aware of the licensing problems in the TC, are unwilling to try the stuff 
>>unless we shoulder the license burden. Given we cannot even get this sorted out it difficult to build a business around 
>>BPEL until the mess is cleared up. All very depressing .... 
>
>While you were quick to respond John, I think the point is missed. I concur with Steve. Firstly, there should be no need
>for licenses to do with BPEL if the intention was to create a standard. I never did understand the reason why such
>licenses were wrapped around the work of this group. Giving that control to the BPEL authors was not in the best
>interests of OASIS or the members. 
>
>BPMI took the view that such things are unnecessary, and the folks who donated ipr to BPMI.org as part of the 
>development of BPML never did that, nor had no need to. After all, the point of standards is that vendors compete 
>on the basis of implementating them, not creating them. Imagine if the relational model when it was proposed 
>had needed licenses! 
>
>As a next best step, if OASIS insists on licenses for reasons unknown, why not let OASIS issue it. It is silly to have 
>small vendors have to waste valuable development time and resources chasing licenses from big gorilla vendors. 
>I just don't get it. I see no reason why one would be required, and I think several of our members at BPMI.org, and some 
>here, are naturally suspicious about the reasons for such licenses. I think this is the point under Steve's note, which is 
>only natural. Just getting further clarification from BPEL authors like Siebel misses the point John. 
>
>And of course, the underlying model of the pi math behind this innovation, really cannot be subject to license in any case.
>I don't think prof Milner would appreciate that. Sorry to be flippant, but when these sillynesses arise, sometimes
>being flippant is necessary to hammer the point home. 
>
>Howard Smith
>co-chair BPMI.org
>
>
>
>
>---
>
>New Book - Business Process Management: The Third Wave
>www.bpm3.com
>
>Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org
>cell +44 7711 594 494 (operates worldwide, dial UK)
>office +44 20 8660 1963 

---

New Book - Business Process Management: The Third Wave
www.bpm3.com

Howard Smith/CSC/BPMI.org
cell +44 7711 594 494 (operates worldwide, dial UK)
office +44 20 8660 1963

Received on Tuesday, 2 December 2003 11:02:06 UTC