Re: An article on a different type of light weight standards development process

On 16 Jun 2010, at 9:57 AM, andrew.updegrove@gesmer.com wrote:

> Larry,
>
> I'm glad you raised this, because it may be that I don't understand  
> the
> scope of this effort, although I expect that the reality may be that  
> we're
> looking at a spectrum of possible projects rather than either software
> (only) at one extreme and standards (only) at the other. Where we are
> talking about the software extreme, OSI approved license would be  
> perfectly
> acceptable, and we could just talk about best practices in additional
> documentation (e.g., c contribution agreements, etc.). At the other
> extreme, where we are talking about a pure standard with no embedded  
> code,
> an open source license would be, in my opinion, not only  
> inappropriate but
> counter productive, as it would raise unnecessary angst among  
> traditional
> technology company participants and implementers. I would not assume  
> that
> there will not be projects of interest to W3C (and vis-versa) that  
> are not
> purely standards activities, as these activities already do exist.
>
> That leaves, of course, the middle ground, where a given project  
> could be
> mostly, but not completely, one or the other. And some trailblazing in
> that domain could be independently useful in addition to making a  
> proper
> home for such efforts within W3C.
>
> As you and I know from past discussions, this is a very complex  
> issue, so
> I'd suggest that we add this to a call agenda rather take it the  
> next step
> by email, as we could sink many hours in that pursuit, and it would
> probably work better as an interactive call involving all in any  
> event.

"Lightweight IPR considerations" is an important piece of our  
discussions. There are other pieces as well that we will need to  
discuss, which are listed in the wiki (including):

  * the impact of individual participation the membership model
  * the (changing?) role of the W3C staff in a scalable incubation model
  * what infrastructure do our customers expect to have?
  * what process / guidelines do we need?

I am glad we have lawyers in the group to help us navigate the legal  
issues. I will ensure that they remain on the agenda as soon as we  
start formulating proposals.

  _ Ian

>
> public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org wrote on 06/15/2010 07:40:49 PM:
>
> > Hi Andy,
> >
> > I'm confused about the word "standards" in the subject of your
> > email: "RE: An article on a different type of light weight standards
> > development process". Probably that is because I am a software
> > lawyer, familiar now with "The Apache Way", with not much  
> experience at
> W3C.
> >
> > In Open Web Foundation and for the light-weight standards we are
> > trying to support in that venue, the distinctions between  
> standards and
> > software are blurred. As we see it, engineers write software to
> > prototype and document what they subsequently incorporate into
> > standards. Or vice versa. (Some of us describe it informally as
> > "standard setting in a bar setting.") Ultimately many of the words
> > of those standard specifications are embedded into software
> > implementations and its documentation, with little regard to what is
> > "text" and what is "code" or which came first.
> >
> > W3C needs a way for such informal creative efforts to thrive within
> > a structured and permissive and supportive environment. In this
> > context, the arbitrary distinctions between specifications and
> > software, which are invisible by merely looking at it anyway, become
> > particularly unhelpful. Therefore, for ease of analysis, I propose
> > that we view the intellectual property portions of this W3C
> > Incubation effort as an open source software licensing transaction
> > (or set of transactions) in the form of license grants for
> > copyrightable (code and text) contributions turned into published
> > specifications, and for associated patent claims.
> >
> > If you can identify other specific salient characteristics of
> specifications
> > that are different from mere software, perhaps we can discuss ways
> > to get around such distinctions. For example, there are ways to
> > prevent any final W3C specification itself from being forked, even
> > without inhibiting free software. PSIG is considering such a license
> > for HTML5 specifications which, if done right, will contain both
> > free code and free text when they are published.
> >
> > At a conference in Helsinki last week, I learned a new term: "Agile
> > Development". (New to me, at least!!!) I was too busy talking in
> > another track to learn much about it, but the general idea seems to
> > be that engineers and their managers are finding ways to be nimble,
> > with as little up-front legal and process burden as possible, while
> > they invent and market successful products. Larger companies are
> > aware of IP risks, of course, but they don't want their employees'
> > inventiveness to be delayed by up-front standards scoping or by
> > lengthy reviews of potential patent commitments. So we lawyers need
> > to create new models by which software and specifications grow
> > faster than lawyers can keep up with. And also everyone agrees that,
> > at least for these agile standards, they must be royalty free for
> > both open source and proprietary implementations.
> >
> > That's what I visualize in a light-weight W3C standards process.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > /Larry
> >
> >
> > Lawrence Rosen
> > Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)
> > 3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
> > Cell: 707-478-8932
> > Apache Software Foundation, member and counsel (www.apache.org)
> > Open Web Foundation, board member (www.openwebfoundation.org)
> > Stanford University, Instructor in Law
> > Author, Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual  
> Property
> Law
> > (Prentice Hall 2004)
> >
> >
> >
> > From: public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org [mailto:public-vision-
> > newstd-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andrew.Updegrove@gesmer.com
> > Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2010 12:21 PM
> > To: public-vision-newstd@w3.org; public-vision-newstd-request@w3.org
> > Subject: An article on a different type of light weight standards
> > development process
> > <snip>
> >
>
> See the New Gesmer.com
>
> Any tax information or written tax advice contained herein  
> (including any attachments) is not intended to be and cannot be used  
> by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may  
> be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed  
> pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
>
> Electronic mail from Gesmer Updegrove LLP, 40 Broad Street, Boston,  
> MA 02109. Voice: (617) 350-6800, Fax: (617) 350-6878. This  
> communication is intended only for the use of the individual or  
> entity named as the addressee. It may contain information which is  
> privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If you are not  
> the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you  
> are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of  
> this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this  
> communication in error, please immediately notify Christopher  
> O'Sullivan at (617) 350-6800 and notify the sender by electronic  
> mail. Please expunge this communication without making any copies.  
> Thank you for your cooperation.
>

--
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)    http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
Tel:                                      +1 718 260 9447

Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2010 15:42:37 UTC