W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > June 2003

RE: Draft Choreography Spec

From: Yaron Y. Goland <ygoland@bea.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:53:34 -0700
To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "WS Choreography \(E-mail\)" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GMEOJGJFKALPDCNPFMDOCEOCDEAA.ygoland@bea.com>
BEA made a full IP declaration and the W3C IP page for the WS-Chor WG is in
error. I think this is a consequence of the fact that we were amongst the
first folks to join and the process wasn't quite functional yet.

In any case, I'm now a happy camper. I will read your spec as soon as I dig
my way out of the mail backlog for WS-Chor.

        Yaron


  -----Original Message-----
  From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
  Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 10:29 PM
  To: Yaron Y. Goland; Burdett, David; WS Choreography (E-mail)
  Subject: RE: Draft Choreography Spec


  Yaron

  How about this as an idea ...

  Commerce One changes our IP statement on the WS Chor from "undeclared" -
which coincindentally is the same as BEA's - to one of "non-declared (RF)",
i.e. if there are any patents which Commerce One owns in the ideas in the
spec (which I don't beleive there are) then they would be made available on
RF terms - I don't have the precise legalese but I will get it.

  Also please note that my original email stated an intention, which still
stands, that IF the spec was adopted we would give the relevant IP to the
W3C. This means, more specifically, that we would give the copyright to the
W3C (since that is the only real IP we have) and also make available on RF
terms any "essential claims" in patents that are required to implement the
spec that might exist - which is what you really need to do.

  However, as I don't believe Commerce One has any patents (I'm double
checking) you seem to be demanding, before you read the spec, that we give
away IP to the W3C that we can't give because it doesn't exist. This does
not make sense.

  Now let's look at this from a Commerce One perspective.

  If I adopt your reasoning, it would suggest that Commerce One (or anyone
else for that matter) should not read any BEA specs for the same reasons as
you state - we would run a risk of "polluting" our ideas with BEA IP without
knowing what the consequences are.

  Removing this risk would require that BEA make an immediate declaration
that any IP you have that could affect the development of the choreography
spec be made available on RF terms. Is BEA prepared to do this?

  If you don't does it mean I shouldn't read any of your emails as I might
be polluting my thinking with BEA's ideas which could mean that BEA will
charge me royalties later?

  This is getting really crazy !!!!!

  Regards

  David
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 1:26 PM
    To: Burdett, David; WS Choreography (E-mail)
    Subject: RE: Draft Choreography Spec


    Unfortunately the license isn't sufficient as it only covers the text
itself and not the ideas contained therein. For me to evaluate it, it would
have to be submitted to the W3C and covered under the W3C RF policy so that
both the text and the ideas are protected.

                Yaron
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
      Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 8:36 PM
      To: 'Yaron Y. Goland'; Burdett, David; WS Choreography (E-mail)
      Subject: RE: Draft Choreography Spec


      Yaron

      I understand your perspective and in principle submitting it to the
W3C should be no problem except that it takes time as I will HAVE to go
through our lawyers. I need to do a more detailed check, but I don't think
Commerce One has an patents in this area, so really we are talking about
copyright.

      Also the spec is not complete, and there are some issues and gaps in
it, although I think there are a lot of good ideas <big grin>.

      Finally, as it might help to read the licence in the spec without
actually downloading it, I attach it below. Is this enough so that you can
read it Yaron?

      Finally, can anyone point me towards the procedure/process for making
a submission.

      David
      WS Choreography Licence/Copyright text ...

      "Commerce One Operations, Inc. ("Commerce One") hereby grants you a
nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license to a) publish, copy and
distribute this specification; b) use the documentation in the design,
development and operation of software solutions that conform to this
specification.  If you publish, copy or distribute all or a portion of the
specifications, you must insert the above copyright notice in acknowledgment
of Commerce One's intellectual property interest in the specifications.  No
other rights are granted.
      These specifications are provided "as is" without any express or
implied warranty.  Commerce One expressly disclaims any and all warranties
regarding this specification, including the warranty that this specification
and/or implementations thereof do not violate the rights of others, fitness
for a particular purposes and any other statutory warranties which would
otherwise apply.

      In no event will Commerce One be liable to you or any party for any
direct, indirect, special or consequential damages for any use of this
specification, including, without limitation, any lost profits, business
interruption, loss of programs or other data on your information handling
system or otherwise, even if Commerce One is expressly advised of the
possibility of such damages."

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
        Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:00 AM
        To: Burdett, David; WS Choreography (E-mail)
        Subject: RE: Draft Choreography Spec


        I REALLY want to review this but I can't do so until the IP issues
are clear. I'm afraid it is not sufficient to say that if the group wants
the spec then y'all will submit the IP since this means that the group could
potentially not want the spec and having read it I could be contaminated
with your IP. So I must ask that you officially submit the spec for
consideration by the WG under W3C's IP guidelines. That way there will be no
IP issues.

            Thanks,
                    Yaron
          -----Original Message-----
          From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Burdett, David
          Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 6:41 PM
          To: WS Choreography (E-mail)
          Subject: Draft Choreography Spec


          Here, as promised, is a *draft* of the WS Choreography
specification that expands on the sample XML for a Choreography definition
that I provided in April [1]. It includes a number of additional features
that were not illustrated by the earlier example but is essentially the
same. The zip file at [2] contains:
          1. The draft WS Choreography spec as a PDF
          2. The Choreography XML Schema
          3. Sample XML choreography definitions.

          Also please note that the copyright statement in the spec reserves
Commerce One's rights to the specification. However, if the WS Choreography
group sees fit to want to take this specification further, then Commerce One
will donate their IP in the spec to the W3C.

          David

          [1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Apr/0057.html
          [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Jun/att-0023/WS_Choreogr
aphy_v0-1__13_June_03.zip


          Director, Product Management, Web Services
          Commerce One
          4440 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA
          Tel/VMail: +1 (925) 520 4422; Cell: +1 (925) 216 7704
          mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com; Web:
http://www.commerceone.com
Received on Monday, 30 June 2003 16:53:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:21 GMT