Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| ||||||||||||||||
A call to action on OASIS patent policy
A Call to Action in OASIS The free and open source software community has long demanded that industry standards be freely available to all to implement without patent or other licensing encumbrances. Open standards are essential for free software and open source to thrive. Now OASIS, a major industry consortium that produces e-business and Web services standards, has adopted a patent policy that threatens to undermine our development and licensing model. This patent policy (available, grouped together with other unrelated legal issues, in http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php) permits standards to be based upon so-called "reasonable and non-discriminatory" patent license terms--terms which invariably and unreasonably discriminate against open source and free software to the point of prohibiting them entirely. It would lead to the adoption of standards that cannot be implemented in open source and free software, that cannot be distributed under our licenses. While the policy includes a provision for royalty-free standards, it is a secondary option, which will have little effect if a few OASIS members with patents can ensure it is not used. The OASIS patent policy will encourage large patent holders to negotiate private arrangements among themselves, locking out all free software and open source developers. This is not a new issue for us. We fought hard for a royalty-free patent policy in W3C and encouraged that standards organization to commit its members to open standards. But some W3C member companies, steadfast opponents of software freedom, moved their efforts to OASIS. Without consulting the free software/open source community, they produced a patent policy designed so that we cannot live with it. We ask you to stand with us in opposition to the OASIS patent policy. Do not implement OASIS standards that aren't open. Demand that OASIS revise its policies. If you are an OASIS member, do not participate in any working group that allows encumbered standards that cannot be implemented in open source and free software. Please send email to open@rosenlaw.com to indicate your support. We will forward your comments to the proper authorities at OASIS. If we stand united in opposition to this unacceptable patent policy, we can persuade OASIS to change it. /signed/ Lawrence Rosen Bruce Perens Richard Stallman Lawrence Lessig Eben Moglen Marten Mickos John Weathersby John Terpstra Tim O'Reilly Tony Stanco Don Marti Michael Tiemann Andrew Aitken Karen Copenhaver Doug Levin Dan Ravicher Larry Augustin Mitchell Kapor Russell Nelson Guido van Rossum Daniel Quinlan Murugan Pal Stuart Cohen Danese Cooper Eric Raymond Mark Webbink Ken Coar Doc Searls Brian Behlendorf (Log in to post comments)
This does NOT affect OpenDocument Posted Feb 22, 2005 22:34 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] It's important to note that this does NOT affect the OpenDocument work. OpenDocument is an emerging OASIS standard for office document interchange based on OpenOffice.org.Note that this call says: "Do not implement OASIS standards that aren't open. Demand that OASIS revise its policies. If you are an OASIS member, do not participate in any working group that allows encumbered standards that cannot be implemented in open source and free software." Those who have read articles like: http://perens.com/Articles/PatentFarming.html will be familiar with the issues they're raising. However, the OpenDocument specification clearly does not have this problem, because the committee ground rules require a royalty-free license. This is clearly stated in their IPR statement. Thus, OpenDocument is NOT affected by this appeal to OASIS to change its policies; anyone working on OpenDocument is NOT in conflict with this appeal.
As I understand it... Posted Feb 22, 2005 22:49 UTC (Tue) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] ...Microsoft Office document formats are not available under RAND terms either, so there's evidently no need to appeal to Microsoft to change their policies.
This does NOT affect OpenDocument Posted Feb 22, 2005 23:29 UTC (Tue) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] Without being able to comment on the merits, I'll crosspost here (as of likely interest) David Webber's response to the same post, when you sent it to OSI's list:From: "David Webber (XML)" (david@drrw.info) David, It's a ticking bomb. The sunset date on the current un-IPR status of OpenDocument is currently 2 years. But the OASIS board changed this from 9 months, to 15 months to 2 years, in the past three months. They could just as easily change it again to say 90 days, starting next week if they felt like it. Also - your spec' is in draft. Currently the Board has said nothing on this issue. What if they decide that TC's going to public vote on their specs *have* to adopt one of the evil 3 IPR choices? If you think OpenDocument is not affected by this potentially - dream on! Right this second, it might not - because like all the other TCs the old IPR policy is grandfathered - but how long before the Board gets emboldened and starts turning up the heat on the hold-outs? BTW - I already heard unofficially that the Board discussed my suggested tactic - e.g., each TC adopting a three-paragraph statement in their Charter that negated the IPR policy - and they are alerted to that and are ready to not allow such changes to the Charters.... Cheers, DW
This does NOT affect OpenDocument Posted Feb 23, 2005 13:59 UTC (Wed) by yodermk (subscriber, #3803) [Link] Ok, but why would they do that?
There is NO demand for an "open" document format that is encumbered, requiring royalties. Certainly, any open source project that was implementing the OASIS OpenDoc standards would simply fork it and make their own standard.
Such a move would make OASIS irrelevant. I'm sure they want *that*...
A call to action on OASIS patent policy Posted Feb 23, 2005 0:46 UTC (Wed) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] With the w3 the plan was to create our own patent free group if they didn't change. Is that the plan with OASIS?
A call to action on OASIS patent policy Posted Feb 23, 2005 4:57 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] Well, now we have W3C as a royalty-free group.
Royalty-free a code word? Posted Feb 23, 2005 6:10 UTC (Wed) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link] It seems to me that "royalty-free" is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for equitable licensing. For example, it would allow for each distributor to be required to request permission, subject to conditions such as identifying him/herself and every intended recipient. When people like Bruce say "royalty-free", does it really imply all the other necessary limits on license restrictions? Or, are we now forced to live with lowered expectations, and "royalty-free", literally, is the best we can hope for?
Royalty-free a code word? Posted Feb 23, 2005 12:21 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] At W3C we made sure the entire policy was acceptable to Open Source before endorsing it. Very much time was put in by Eben, Larry, and I - we worked with the committee for a year and a half, with face-to-face meetings every month, teleconferences every week, and email in between.Bruce
A call to action on OASIS patent policy Posted Feb 23, 2005 21:22 UTC (Wed) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] So the W3 would create their on DocBook standard (for example) that wouldn't necessarily be compatible with the OASIS standard?
Maybe you haven't planned that far ahead yet but with the W3, the threat of most people moving their own W3-incompatible standards was a major motivator.
Redefine RAND Posted Feb 23, 2005 8:15 UTC (Wed) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Seeing as it *claims* to be non-discriminatory, then why not require that it *be* non-discriminatory, by saying that licences should be customer-centric...
IE, as a supplier I have to inform my customers that they need a licence should they wish to use it, and it is my clients' responsibility to get a licence (a la MS CAL), should they wish to use it.
This wouldn't conflict with the GPL, as the GPL merely requires that distributors do not *add* restrictions. As this requirement would be added by the original author the legal effect would be a "sort of modified" GPL, not an invalidated/violated GPL.
Cheers,
Redefine RAND Posted Feb 23, 2005 12:35 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] You are asking for a due-diligence load on the user that would be far from practical. Remember that they wouldn't have to get just one license. It would end up being hundreds or thousands, and the expense would be significant both in terms of the effort put in to be in compliance and the fees paid. This would essentially make it impractical, indeed legally untenable, to use Open Source software. And thus our stance is that a requirement attached to a standard for a customer to secure a license is unacceptable.Bruce
Redefine RAND Posted Feb 24, 2005 9:19 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] Then push that line :-)
FLOSS suppliers can't pay for a licence, therefore RAND means that it *must* be the customer's responsibility. (So commercial suppliers don't need a licence either :-) All suppliers are on an equal footing...
That way, customers will choose royalty-free because it's too much hassle to do anything else :-)
Cheers,
|
||||||||||||||||