- From: Howard N Smith <howard.smith@ontology.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:59:38 +0000
- To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
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