I imagine we'd want to allow it. Hard to predict every situation, I think we should focus on what we've seen as criteria for successful open specifications and their communities. From there we'll see what sort of projects get proposed.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:49 AM, James Tauber <jtau...@jtauber.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:47 AM, David Recordon wrote:
> > My largest concern is time and resources of smart people. The more > > that get involved then the more that we can do. We shouldn't start > > with an open specification for a DSL modem authentication protocol > > as I doubt we have the domain expertise to do a good job.
> But following on from the OASIS-Lite meme, would we want to allow a > group of DSL modem auth protocol experts to create a working group > under OWF to do this if they came to us?
The key here is not the subject matter or technical qualities of the spec. It is about being worth the foundation's resources - really people: experienced editors, contributors, etc. If not, as David and Chris said, feel free to use the process and self manage.
EHL
On 7/25/08 12:53 AM, "record...@gmail.com" <record...@gmail.com> wrote:
I imagine we'd want to allow it. Hard to predict every situation, I think we should focus on what we've seen as criteria for successful open specifications and their communities. From there we'll see what sort of projects get proposed.
--David
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:49 AM, James Tauber <jtau...@jtauber.com> wrote:
On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:47 AM, David Recordon wrote:
> My largest concern is time and resources of smart people. The more
> that get involved then the more that we can do. We shouldn't start
> with an open specification for a DSL modem authentication protocol
> as I doubt we have the domain expertise to do a good job.
But following on from the OASIS-Lite meme, would we want to allow a
group of DSL modem auth protocol experts to create a working group
under OWF to do this if they came to us?
I like the sound of an IPRDMZ (aka "Hyperdems"), and lightweight is
good.
What I was hoping from OWF was a kind of communications bridge between
the all of the standards bodies, and also a communications bridge
between all of things like DataPortability, GNU, Apache, Open Source
Initiative etc.
Oh, and by the way, over here in the UK this group shares its name
with another OWF..... the "Order of Women Freemasons" ( http://www.owf.org.uk/ ), I've heard that they are a lovely group of ladies.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gabe Wachob <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
> An early way I'm describing the Open Web Foundation is (as Scott says) > not a Standards Body, but a "IPR DMZ" - (an intellectual property > rights demilitarized zone).
> Most folks who are hearing about this haven't directly participated in > a community standards effort, or a more formal standards body. They > think the W3C/IETF/OASIS "covers it".
> But I think the sense of folks here is that there needs to be > something lighter weight that's only focused on the minimum needed for > a spec to become widely adoptable. For me, thats IPR hygiene -- almost > everything else can be done *easily* without an org (save, maybe the > organizational standup of a new org to hold/manage IPR). Having > slogged through this IPR policy stuff several times,I'm really happy > to see this effort to create a reusable framework for community > efforts. I only hope it remains lightweight and facilitates the widest > range of community efforts as possible.
If we are going to learn from other organisations, then a second thing that is needed is process. One of the main reasons the ASF works, IMO, is because of two pretty simple rules:
1. Meritocracy
2. Three +1s, anyone can veto but must justify.
The IETF lets anyone participate equally. This is broken because WGs can be stalled by any idiot with time on his hands. The ASF allows anyone to speak, but only votes from committers are counted.
The W3C lets you buy a voice - and won't give you one unless you pay. I hope its obvious why this is broken.
The three +1s with veto allows progress to be made rapidly without having to pause for formal votes on a regular basis. The justification requirement seems to pretty effectively prevent hidden agendas and frivolous vetos (no-one is going to say "I vetoed because my plan is better than yours").
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Dan Peterson <dpeter...@google.com> wrote: > I absolutely agree that OWF shouldn't be a gate keeper for "competing" > specs. Two (or really "n"), in the same domain, should be able to co-exist > peacefully.
> As for going beyond legal/IPR, I feel like we -- collectively -- could come > up with some "default" best practices around spec governance and related > processes. While I'd recommend they not formally be "required," I'd imagine > most sub-projects would then use them as a baseline when setting up their > own processes. It'd avoid re-inventing the wheel, and lower the per-project > learning curve on etiquette and culture.
The lesson the ASF learned is that you actually do have to require governance and process or you end up with some very dysfunctional projects. This is largely why the incubator exists.
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:47 PM, Gabe Wachob <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
>> I'm looking forward to seeing your thoughts, Eran.
>> The more this group goes outside just providing the legal/IPR >> framework, the more I get nervous.
>> What exactly is the purpose of being a gatekeeper w/r/t competing >> specs? Why *not* let the market decide if two "competing" specs come >> out of efforts under the OWF umbrella? This org's purpose is not to >> promote a certain spec over another, except as to the "openness", right?
>> I'm just really worried that once you get into the "this spec is >> blessed and this isn't", for any reasons other than IPR openness, you >> instantly become un-lightweight, and the purpose gets muddled. >> Furthermore, you likely end up turning away potential work that >> *could* be useful and would leverage the IPR framework in OWF.
>> -Gabe
>> On Jul 24, 2008, at 11:10 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>> > I am going to spend tomorrow writing down about a lot of the >> > discussions and ideas that are driving this effort.
>> > But for now, the simple answer is that we are going to come up with >> > a system that will answer these questions without really dealing >> > with them. For example, we can require a certain number of initial >> > contributors to start a project, or a certain number of >> > implementations, etc. The role of the foundation is to handle IPR in >> > a community friendly way (which doesn't exist today), but also to >> > assign experienced mentors to new projects. The incubation process >> > is not about the foundation forming any technical or economical >> > opinions.
>> > I am a big believer in market forces and trust the open web >> > community to know when it should offer competing solutions and when >> > it should rally around an existing one. When bringing a project to >> > the foundation for incubation, the foundation is going to dedicate >> > some resources to help make the project more successful. Remember >> > that you will be able to take the legal documents and use them >> > outside the foundation if you so desire. But to get accepted you >> > will need to answer some question such as what exists today and why >> > it is not enough. But again, it will not be some foundation >> > committee that should review your application, but the community at >> > large.
>> > For example, say I want to start a competing spec to OAuth. I can >> > just write it using the IPR policy the foundation will publish or >> > bring it for incubation. If I ask to incubate it, I am going to be >> > asked to say:
>> > 1. Why isn't OAuth good enough? >> > 2. Did I propose my idea to the OAuth community? >> > 3. How is my solution better? >> > 4. Who is going to use it? >> > 5. Etc...
>> > The idea is that at this point, to get into the foundation process, >> > I will need to convince enough people that my answers justify >> > another spec. If I can do that my project should be accepted. But I >> > better come up with damn good answers to get such support from other >> > people. Given that this entire process will be done in the open, it >> > will be very hard to get away with bullshit ideas.
>> > EHL
>> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >> > [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >> > ] On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob >> > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:52 PM >> > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >> > Subject: Re: Open Web Foundation characterization
>> > Chris-
>> > Are these criteria for content, or merely for openness?
>> > Is this group trying to be some sort of judge of technical merit, or >> > of market value?
>> > -Gabe
>> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com >> > > wrote: >> >> We'll be looking at a lot of the Apache processes for incubation. >> >> Anyone of >> >> course can start an independent specification process; the ones >> >> that go >> >> through the OWF will probably need to meet some set of criteria, >> >> still TBD. >> >> Chris
>> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Elias Bizannes >> >> <elias.bizan...@gmail.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> I like the approach, but am wondering about where the line is? If >> >>> it's >> >>> a specification, does that mean anyone that knocks on the door can >> >>> be >> >>> supported? Will there be a difference between, say, a specification >> >>> for authentication as opposed to a CMS plugin?
>> >>> +1 on lightweight. Sounds simple, but there is a lot of value in >> >>> that >> >>> alone...but hard to achieve as well.
>> >> -- >> >> Chris Messina >> >> Citizen-Participant & >> >> Open Source Advocate-at-Large >> >> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org >> >> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com >> >> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:36 AM, Gabe Wachob <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
> James- > I have been an OASIS TC chair for almost 6 years. I totally agree > that hte model should be OASIS lite. In fact, I have been arguing to > those who would listen that OASIS should just drop its membership fees > for individuals... and then it would be pretty good (the process needs > a little fat-trimming in OASIS admittedly).
> I'm worried about the whole filtering process inside ASF - totally > appropriate for that environment, but it feels like friction we don't > need for specs...
Could you expand on what you mean by "the whole filtering process inside ASF"?
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:33 AM, James Tauber <jtau...@jtauber.com> wrote:
>> One example of a "specification-developing body" that adopts the >> approach of allowing multiple competing specifications to be developed >> within is OASIS (http://www.oasis-open.org/)
>> In fact, if you describe OWF as "Apache for specs", you could describe >> OASIS as an "Apache for Enterprisey Specs" ;)
>> Whether OWF is OASIS-Lite or something else, there are probably a lot >> of interesting things to borrow from at:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Gabe Wachob <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
> DeWitt- > Well, if you say this is like the apache project - then this "org" > is producing something? Not standards? Specifications? So its a > specifications organization, not a standards body? Rhetorical > questions.
> Point is, the more we excercise criteria like the following ones > [1] from ASF, the more it looks feels a standards body:
> Alignment / Synergy > * Use of other ASF subprojects > * Develop synergistic relationship with other ASF subprojects
I would agree that these should be suggestions rather than requirements.
> If it were up to me, any group that met a minimum bar could come > into the org and comply with the IPR rules (and maybe extra rules > about openness, including diversity of participation, transparency, > etc) and produce a spec. And the meaning of OWF's association would be > that the IPR hygiene is clean and the spec was made in a minimally > transparent way.
+1
> The Apache meritocracy is about producing good quality code, where > good is defined by "being done by people with good reputation". I just > get really nervous when a group, no matter how experienced and well > respected the leaders/comitters are, decides a spec gets a thumbs up > or thumbs down before a spec even gets to market. It dilutes the > purpose of this org, I believe. Call me a free marketer ;)
The meritocracy decides who is trusted to screw up the code base, not the popularity of the product.
> So I hear you about lightweight and focus on IPR, but I'm trying > to understand the purpose of the Apache process for promoting work > from "candidate" to podling to project and why that's needed here. > Maybe I'm just being too literal here - but why do we need anything > other than "in/out" (and maybe "dead to inactivity or failure to > comply with IPR and/or process")? Once you come and show that your > contributors are good to go with the OWF IPR rules (and that there's a > legitimate community effort -- but thats a low bar I think), what else > should you need?
Process that ensures that genuine participants are treated fairly.
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:13 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote: >> Good thing we're not a standards body!
>> Many people here are already familiar with the Apache Incubator process, but >> for newcomers, here are some good links to read on one model that works very >> well, and can probably be adapted to specifications:
>> Worth reading again as we get started. I'd also love to hear from the >> Apache members on this list as to what works in practice, and what, if >> anything, they wish they could change about the Incubator.
>> Cheers,
>> -DeWitt
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Gabe Wachob <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
>>> This group has to be thin (just IPR, and minimum critical mass for new >>> work) and wide (anyone can participate, nobody blackballs or blesses >>> specs, etc).
>>> Most stds bodies are tall and skinny..
>>> -Gabe
>>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> >>> wrote:
>>> > I completely agree.
>>> > I think the key here is more about setting minimum requirements that are >>> > *not* about content, such as certain number of participants, the ability to >>> > find an experienced spec editor to sponsor/mentor the effort, getting some >>> > level of actual adoption before graduation. Basically - find ways to let the >>> > market guide us in an open way.
>>> > EHL
>>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >>> > [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob >>> > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 11:47 PM >>> > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >>> > Subject: Re: Open Web Foundation characterization
>>> > I'm looking forward to seeing your thoughts, Eran.
>>> > The more this group goes outside just providing the legal/IPR >>> > framework, the more I get nervous.
>>> > What exactly is the purpose of being a gatekeeper w/r/t competing >>> > specs? Why *not* let the market decide if two "competing" specs come >>> > out of efforts under the OWF umbrella? This org's purpose is not to >>> > promote a certain spec over another, except as to the "openness", right?
>>> > I'm just really worried that once you get into the "this spec is >>> > blessed and this isn't", for any reasons other than IPR openness, you >>> > instantly become un-lightweight, and the purpose gets muddled. >>> > Furthermore, you likely end up turning away potential work that >>> > *could* be useful and would leverage the IPR framework in OWF.
>>> > -Gabe
>>> > On Jul 24, 2008, at 11:10 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>> >> I am going to spend tomorrow writing down about a lot of the >>> >> discussions and ideas that are driving this effort.
>>> >> But for now, the simple answer is that we are going to come up with >>> >> a system that will answer these questions without really dealing >>> >> with them. For example, we can require a certain number of initial >>> >> contributors to start a project, or a certain number of >>> >> implementations, etc. The role of the foundation is to handle IPR in >>> >> a community friendly way (which doesn't exist today), but also to >>> >> assign experienced mentors to new projects. The incubation process >>> >> is not about the foundation forming any technical or economical >>> >> opinions.
>>> >> I am a big believer in market forces and trust the open web >>> >> community to know when it should offer competing solutions and when >>> >> it should rally around an existing one. When bringing a project to >>> >> the foundation for incubation, the foundation is going to dedicate >>> >> some resources to help make the project more successful. Remember >>> >> that you will be able to take the legal documents and use them >>> >> outside the foundation if you so desire. But to get accepted you >>> >> will need to answer some question such as what exists today and why >>> >> it is not enough. But again, it will not be some foundation >>> >> committee that should review your application, but the community at >>> >> large.
>>> >> For example, say I want to start a competing spec to OAuth. I can >>> >> just write it using the IPR policy the foundation will publish or >>> >> bring it for incubation. If I ask to incubate it, I am going to be >>> >> asked to say:
>>> >> 1. Why isn't OAuth good enough? >>> >> 2. Did I propose my idea to the OAuth community? >>> >> 3. How is my solution better? >>> >> 4. Who is going to use it? >>> >> 5. Etc...
>>> >> The idea is that at this point, to get into the foundation process, >>> >> I will need to convince enough people that my answers justify >>> >> another spec. If I can do that my project should be accepted. But I >>> >> better come up with damn good answers to get such support from other >>> >> people. Given that this entire process will be done in the open, it >>> >> will be very hard to get away with bullshit ideas.
>>> >> EHL
>>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >>> >> [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >>> >> ] On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob >>> >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:52 PM >>> >> To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >>> >> Subject: Re: Open Web Foundation characterization
>>> >> Chris-
>>> >> Are these criteria for content, or merely for openness?
>>> >> Is this group trying to be some sort of judge of technical merit, or >>> >> of market value?
>>> >> -Gabe
>>> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> We'll be looking at a lot of the Apache processes for incubation. >>> >>> Anyone of >>> >>> course can start an independent specification process; the ones >>> >>> that go >>> >>> through the OWF will probably need to meet some set of criteria, >>> >>> still TBD. >>> >>> Chris
>>> >>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Elias Bizannes >>> >>> <elias.bizan...@gmail.com
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>> I like the approach, but am wondering about where the line is? If >>> >>>> it's >>> >>>> a specification, does that mean anyone that knocks on the door can >>> >>>> be >>> >>>> supported? Will there be a difference between, say, a specification >>> >>>> for authentication as opposed to a CMS plugin?
>>> >>>> +1 on lightweight. Sounds simple, but there is a lot of value in >>> >>>> that >>> >>>> alone...but hard to achieve as well.
>>> >>> -- >>> >>> Chris Messina >>> >>> Citizen-Participant & >>> >>> Open Source Advocate-at-Large >>> >>> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org >>> >>> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com >>> >>> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
I agree that creating a zone of greater IPR certainty with lower
negotiation costs is a good goal.
On Jul 24, 11:08 pm, "Gabe Wachob" <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
> An early way I'm describing the Open Web Foundation is (as Scott says)
> not a Standards Body, but a "IPR DMZ" - (an intellectual property
> rights demilitarized zone).
Not to force the analogy, but I'd suggest that demilitarization is
hard to achieve in the patent licensing world simply because there
are too many insurgencies (trolls and even legitimate technology
developers) whose business model is to make money by sitting outside
community processes and pouncing when the opportunity arise. I'll
leave the insurgency/counter-insurgency discussion off here... :-)
I would suggest that goal might be IRP safe passage. A set of terms
that participants can agree to on a no-negotiation basis and then
attach to the work that they do. As others have said, this follows the
Creative Commons and open source model. There's no guarantee that the
license attached to a document is actually cleared, but at least
everyone is talking the same language.
> Most folks who are hearing about this haven't directly participated in
> a community standards effort, or a more formal standards body. They
> think the W3C/IETF/OASIS "covers it".
> But I think the sense of folks here is that there needs to be
> something lighter weight that's only focused on the minimum needed for
> a spec to become widely adoptable. For me, thats IPR hygiene -- almost
> everything else can be done *easily* without an org (save, maybe the
> organizational standup of a new org to hold/manage IPR). Having
> slogged through this IPR policy stuff several times,I'm really happy
> to see this effort to create a reusable framework for community
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Danny Weitzner <djweitz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree that creating a zone of greater IPR certainty with lower > negotiation costs is a good goal.
> On Jul 24, 11:08 pm, "Gabe Wachob" <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote: >> An early way I'm describing the Open Web Foundation is (as Scott says) >> not a Standards Body, but a "IPR DMZ" - (an intellectual property >> rights demilitarized zone).
> Not to force the analogy, but I'd suggest that demilitarization is > hard to achieve in the patent licensing world simply because there > are too many insurgencies (trolls and even legitimate technology > developers) whose business model is to make money by sitting outside > community processes and pouncing when the opportunity arise. I'll > leave the insurgency/counter-insurgency discussion off here... :-)
> I would suggest that goal might be IRP safe passage. A set of terms > that participants can agree to on a no-negotiation basis and then > attach to the work that they do. As others have said, this follows the > Creative Commons and open source model. There's no guarantee that the > license attached to a document is actually cleared, but at least > everyone is talking the same language.
I think it is a given that we can only bind participants to IPR agreements. Patent trolls are out of scope.
>> Most folks who are hearing about this haven't directly participated in >> a community standards effort, or a more formal standards body. They >> think the W3C/IETF/OASIS "covers it".
>> But I think the sense of folks here is that there needs to be >> something lighter weight that's only focused on the minimum needed for >> a spec to become widely adoptable. For me, thats IPR hygiene -- almost >> everything else can be done *easily* without an org (save, maybe the >> organizational standup of a new org to hold/manage IPR). Having >> slogged through this IPR policy stuff several times,I'm really happy >> to see this effort to create a reusable framework for community > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> !!
>> efforts. I only hope it remains lightweight and facilitates the widest >> range of community efforts as possible.
Jumping back in and popping back up the stack a bit:
The reason OWF is not a standards body is because we're explicitly saying that the OWF is not a standards body. OASIS and IETF and W3C are standards bodies because their charters say to be standards bodies, and thus they are optimized to produce something called standards at the end. One of the goals of standard bodies is to reduce competing or conflicting technologies; that is not one of our goals. Also, standards bodies have accepted the challenge of convincing the world that their work is the canonical version of a given specification. Again, that's not one of our goals. (I'd also posit that one of the reasons it is difficult for a standards body to run a successful incubator in-house is because those goals, however good, are often at odds with getting immature technology off the ground.)
The end result of project that goes through the OWF incubation process is *a working specification with clean IP that has demonstrated the ability to sustain a diversity of contributors*. Nothing more, nothing less.
That's not an easy thing to obtain, but it is easier to do that than build a actual standard. The logical consequence is there will be specifications that make it through the OWF process that are non-standard. And that's okay.
I do consider standardization a higher bar, and I hope many projects incubated with OWF go on to standardization at IETF, W3C, OASIS, or wherever. But that is not our goal either.
Regarding IPR, yes, I think what we're trying to do is a) *create some commonly agreed upon language around specification licensing*, a. la. the CC license for copyright or the Apache license for source code, and b) *ensure that all project contributors have agreed to those terms*. Challenges like dealing with non-contributors and/or trolls are out of scope (partly because I think those problems are intractable).
And popping way back up, I really hope we don't spend too much time creating committees. The Apache governance model is pretty much the high end of what I personally have the stomach for. *The OWF governance model should be optimized for participation by busy engineers,* not full-timers.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Ben Laurie <b...@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Danny Weitzner <djweitz...@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > I agree that creating a zone of greater IPR certainty with lower > > negotiation costs is a good goal.
> > On Jul 24, 11:08 pm, "Gabe Wachob" <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote: > >> An early way I'm describing the Open Web Foundation is (as Scott says) > >> not a Standards Body, but a "IPR DMZ" - (an intellectual property > >> rights demilitarized zone).
> > Not to force the analogy, but I'd suggest that demilitarization is > > hard to achieve in the patent licensing world simply because there > > are too many insurgencies (trolls and even legitimate technology > > developers) whose business model is to make money by sitting outside > > community processes and pouncing when the opportunity arise. I'll > > leave the insurgency/counter-insurgency discussion off here... :-)
> > I would suggest that goal might be IRP safe passage. A set of terms > > that participants can agree to on a no-negotiation basis and then > > attach to the work that they do. As others have said, this follows the > > Creative Commons and open source model. There's no guarantee that the > > license attached to a document is actually cleared, but at least > > everyone is talking the same language.
> I think it is a given that we can only bind participants to IPR > agreements. Patent trolls are out of scope.
> >> Most folks who are hearing about this haven't directly participated in > >> a community standards effort, or a more formal standards body. They > >> think the W3C/IETF/OASIS "covers it".
> >> But I think the sense of folks here is that there needs to be > >> something lighter weight that's only focused on the minimum needed for > >> a spec to become widely adoptable. For me, thats IPR hygiene -- almost > >> everything else can be done *easily* without an org (save, maybe the > >> organizational standup of a new org to hold/manage IPR). Having > >> slogged through this IPR policy stuff several times,I'm really happy > >> to see this effort to create a reusable framework for community > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > !!
> >> efforts. I only hope it remains lightweight and facilitates the widest > >> range of community efforts as possible.
This is a great summation - thanks. While the OWF is not a standards body, I expect that specs that come out of the OWF process with a clean IPR bill of health will be easier to move through the standards process, since the IPR issues will have already been dealt with.
--Steve
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:59 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote: > The end result of project that goes through the OWF incubation process is a > working specification with clean IP that has demonstrated the ability to > sustain a diversity of contributors. Nothing more, nothing less.
> The reason OWF is not a standards body is because we're explicitly > saying that the OWF is not a standards body.
thanks Dewitt, that greatly reassures me.
> Regarding IPR, yes, I think what we're trying to do is a) create > some commonly agreed upon language around specification licensing, > a. la. the CC license for copyright or the Apache license for source > code, and
I can see that working, with some legal resource, of course CC had Larry Lessig to turn a sea of bespoke licenses into pressing a set of simple radio buttons.
There are existing licenses to reuse, W3C document springs to mind, but IANAL, and I for guess this to work, we're going to need one. Or a bunch.
> b) ensure that all project contributors have agreed to those terms.
That's something every collaborative effort has to tackle at some stage. Having a transparent, off the shelf process which scales horizontally will help many and be invaluable. Is that the intent?
> The OWF governance model should be optimized for participation by > busy engineers, not full-timers.
However, I think you are maybe mischaracterizing OASIS a bit and I'd just like folks to keep OASIS in mind as a model in addition to ASF.
OASIS doesn't make any attempt to "de-dupe" specs. OASIS has a very very lightweight process (scales down to a handful of individuals if you want - except the final Oasis-wide vote which has a lot of warts). OASIS, in fact, does no real filtering at all except minimum bars of transparency and adherence to one of several IPR modes (only one of which folks here would find acceptable for "open standards"). When I was saying "filtering" before re: ASF, it was not a dig - but rather a statement that anyone who wants to be an ASF project cannot just show up and be a project - in fact, you have to convince disinterested parties that you belong there. Probably the right answer for OWF is somewhere in between.
I'm not suggesting we copy OASIS, any more than you guys are suggesting we copy ASF. Lets just not throw the baby out with the bathwater....
I think the first step for OWF is a statement of rather detailed goals and principles because otherwise, this thread will go on forever ;)
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:59 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote: > Jumping back in and popping back up the stack a bit:
> The reason OWF is not a standards body is because we're explicitly saying > that the OWF is not a standards body. OASIS and IETF and W3C are standards > bodies because their charters say to be standards bodies, and thus they are > optimized to produce something called standards at the end. One of the > goals of standard bodies is to reduce competing or conflicting technologies; > that is not one of our goals. Also, standards bodies have accepted the > challenge of convincing the world that their work is the canonical version > of a given specification. Again, that's not one of our goals. (I'd also > posit that one of the reasons it is difficult for a standards body to run a > successful incubator in-house is because those goals, however good, are > often at odds with getting immature technology off the ground.)
> The end result of project that goes through the OWF incubation process is a > working specification with clean IP that has demonstrated the ability to > sustain a diversity of contributors. Nothing more, nothing less.
> That's not an easy thing to obtain, but it is easier to do that than build a > actual standard. The logical consequence is there will be specifications > that make it through the OWF process that are non-standard. And that's > okay.
> I do consider standardization a higher bar, and I hope many projects > incubated with OWF go on to standardization at IETF, W3C, OASIS, or > wherever. But that is not our goal either.
> Regarding IPR, yes, I think what we're trying to do is a) create some > commonly agreed upon language around specification licensing, a. la. the CC > license for copyright or the Apache license for source code, and b) ensure > that all project contributors have agreed to those terms. Challenges like > dealing with non-contributors and/or trolls are out of scope (partly because > I think those problems are intractable).
> And popping way back up, I really hope we don't spend too much time creating > committees. The Apache governance model is pretty much the high end of what > I personally have the stomach for. The OWF governance model should be > optimized for participation by busy engineers, not full-timers.
> Cheers,
> -DeWitt
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Ben Laurie <b...@google.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Danny Weitzner <djweitz...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>> > I agree that creating a zone of greater IPR certainty with lower >> > negotiation costs is a good goal.
>> > On Jul 24, 11:08 pm, "Gabe Wachob" <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote: >> >> An early way I'm describing the Open Web Foundation is (as Scott says) >> >> not a Standards Body, but a "IPR DMZ" - (an intellectual property >> >> rights demilitarized zone).
>> > Not to force the analogy, but I'd suggest that demilitarization is >> > hard to achieve in the patent licensing world simply because there >> > are too many insurgencies (trolls and even legitimate technology >> > developers) whose business model is to make money by sitting outside >> > community processes and pouncing when the opportunity arise. I'll >> > leave the insurgency/counter-insurgency discussion off here... :-)
>> > I would suggest that goal might be IRP safe passage. A set of terms >> > that participants can agree to on a no-negotiation basis and then >> > attach to the work that they do. As others have said, this follows the >> > Creative Commons and open source model. There's no guarantee that the >> > license attached to a document is actually cleared, but at least >> > everyone is talking the same language.
>> I think it is a given that we can only bind participants to IPR >> agreements. Patent trolls are out of scope.
>> >> Most folks who are hearing about this haven't directly participated in >> >> a community standards effort, or a more formal standards body. They >> >> think the W3C/IETF/OASIS "covers it".
>> >> But I think the sense of folks here is that there needs to be >> >> something lighter weight that's only focused on the minimum needed for >> >> a spec to become widely adoptable. For me, thats IPR hygiene -- almost >> >> everything else can be done *easily* without an org (save, maybe the >> >> organizational standup of a new org to hold/manage IPR). Having >> >> slogged through this IPR policy stuff several times,I'm really happy >> >> to see this effort to create a reusable framework for community >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > !!
>> >> efforts. I only hope it remains lightweight and facilitates the widest >> >> range of community efforts as possible.
> This is a great summation - thanks. While the OWF is not a standards > body, I expect that specs that come out of the OWF process with a > clean IPR bill of health will be easier to move through the standards > process, since the IPR issues will have already been dealt with.
I think that realistically the way things are today the traditional standards bodies have stopped adding anything meaningful. Something light and open like has been described here for OWF is really all that should every be necessary - even in the long run.
Actually, that's an idiotic quote that represents a massive misunderstanding, and it should not stand. Standards are positive sum, war is negative sum.
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> wrote: > A great quote from Stephen Walli at OSCON this week (which I hope I remember > right):
> Standards are how companies declare war against the market leader.
> From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com > [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of DeWitt Clinton > Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 12:14 AM > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Open Web Foundation characterization
> Good thing we're not a standards body!
> Many people here are already familiar with the Apache Incubator process, but > for newcomers, here are some good links to read on one model that works very > well, and can probably be adapted to specifications:
> Worth reading again as we get started. I'd also love to hear from the > Apache members on this list as to what works in practice, and what, if > anything, they wish they could change about the Incubator.
> Cheers,
> -DeWitt
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:06 AM, Gabe Wachob <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
> This group has to be thin (just IPR, and minimum critical mass for new > work) and wide (anyone can participate, nobody blackballs or blesses > specs, etc).
> Most stds bodies are tall and skinny..
> -Gabe
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <e...@hueniverse.com> > wrote:
>> I completely agree.
>> I think the key here is more about setting minimum requirements that are >> *not* about content, such as certain number of participants, the ability to >> find an experienced spec editor to sponsor/mentor the effort, getting some >> level of actual adoption before graduation. Basically - find ways to let the >> market guide us in an open way.
>> EHL
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >> [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob >> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 11:47 PM >> To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >> Subject: Re: Open Web Foundation characterization
>> I'm looking forward to seeing your thoughts, Eran.
>> The more this group goes outside just providing the legal/IPR >> framework, the more I get nervous.
>> What exactly is the purpose of being a gatekeeper w/r/t competing >> specs? Why *not* let the market decide if two "competing" specs come >> out of efforts under the OWF umbrella? This org's purpose is not to >> promote a certain spec over another, except as to the "openness", right?
>> I'm just really worried that once you get into the "this spec is >> blessed and this isn't", for any reasons other than IPR openness, you >> instantly become un-lightweight, and the purpose gets muddled. >> Furthermore, you likely end up turning away potential work that >> *could* be useful and would leverage the IPR framework in OWF.
>> -Gabe
>> On Jul 24, 2008, at 11:10 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>>> I am going to spend tomorrow writing down about a lot of the >>> discussions and ideas that are driving this effort.
>>> But for now, the simple answer is that we are going to come up with >>> a system that will answer these questions without really dealing >>> with them. For example, we can require a certain number of initial >>> contributors to start a project, or a certain number of >>> implementations, etc. The role of the foundation is to handle IPR in >>> a community friendly way (which doesn't exist today), but also to >>> assign experienced mentors to new projects. The incubation process >>> is not about the foundation forming any technical or economical >>> opinions.
>>> I am a big believer in market forces and trust the open web >>> community to know when it should offer competing solutions and when >>> it should rally around an existing one. When bringing a project to >>> the foundation for incubation, the foundation is going to dedicate >>> some resources to help make the project more successful. Remember >>> that you will be able to take the legal documents and use them >>> outside the foundation if you so desire. But to get accepted you >>> will need to answer some question such as what exists today and why >>> it is not enough. But again, it will not be some foundation >>> committee that should review your application, but the community at >>> large.
>>> For example, say I want to start a competing spec to OAuth. I can >>> just write it using the IPR policy the foundation will publish or >>> bring it for incubation. If I ask to incubate it, I am going to be >>> asked to say:
>>> 1. Why isn't OAuth good enough? >>> 2. Did I propose my idea to the OAuth community? >>> 3. How is my solution better? >>> 4. Who is going to use it? >>> 5. Etc...
>>> The idea is that at this point, to get into the foundation process, >>> I will need to convince enough people that my answers justify >>> another spec. If I can do that my project should be accepted. But I >>> better come up with damn good answers to get such support from other >>> people. Given that this entire process will be done in the open, it >>> will be very hard to get away with bullshit ideas.
>>> EHL
>>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >>> [mailto:open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >>> ] On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob >>> Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 9:52 PM >>> To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >>> Subject: Re: Open Web Foundation characterization
>>> Chris-
>>> Are these criteria for content, or merely for openness?
>>> Is this group trying to be some sort of judge of technical merit, or >>> of market value?
>>> -Gabe
>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>>> We'll be looking at a lot of the Apache processes for incubation. >>>> Anyone of >>>> course can start an independent specification process; the ones >>>> that go >>>> through the OWF will probably need to meet some set of criteria, >>>> still TBD. >>>> Chris
>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:43 PM, Elias Bizannes >>>> <elias.bizan...@gmail.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I like the approach, but am wondering about where the line is? If >>>>> it's >>>>> a specification, does that mean anyone that knocks on the door can >>>>> be >>>>> supported? Will there be a difference between, say, a specification >>>>> for authentication as opposed to a CMS plugin?
>>>>> +1 on lightweight. Sounds simple, but there is a lot of value in >>>>> that >>>>> alone...but hard to achieve as well.
>>>> -- >>>> Chris Messina >>>> Citizen-Participant & >>>> Open Source Advocate-at-Large >>>> factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org >>>> citizenagency.com # vidoop.com >>>> This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Gabe Wachob <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
> Thanks Dewitt, this is great.
+1. This is very clear, and speaks to the many conversations that were had mulling over our intentions, goals and (minor) ambitions in getting this off the ground.
We're not solving world hunger (as someone said yesterday), we're trying to ease the pain that we're feeling today, and have been feeling for the past two years with OpenID and then OAuth. And then generalize what we've produced and learned so that others don't have to repeat the same pains when they engage in something that, as Kevin pointed out, is positive sum.
I'm not suggesting we copy OASIS, any more than you guys are
> suggesting we copy ASF. Lets just not throw the baby out with the > bathwater....
I'd be really eager to keep things concrete and hear from personal testimony about specific cases where OASIS, ASF and other processes have worked well -- and where they've failed. We will only be able to learn and improve upon what's come before us if we are able to extract the practices that *actually* lead to success, rather than saying "we should just do what X did and not what Y did".
I think for some of us who are newer to the standards process, we have some ideas about what's worked for us, but don't have the breadth or depth of knowledge for specific historical examples of what's worked and hasn't, down to a specific, practical level. Gabe, I'd love to hear specific examples that we could trace back at OASIS that support what you're saying so I understand more clearly.
> I think the first step for OWF is a statement of rather detailed goals > and principles because otherwise, this thread will go on forever ;)
I think this conversation has been elucidating -- so clearly that kind of document should be forthcoming! ;)
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 7:59 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dew...@google.com> wrote: > > Jumping back in and popping back up the stack a bit:
> > The reason OWF is not a standards body is because we're explicitly saying > > that the OWF is not a standards body. OASIS and IETF and W3C are > standards > > bodies because their charters say to be standards bodies, and thus they > are > > optimized to produce something called standards at the end. One of the > > goals of standard bodies is to reduce competing or conflicting > technologies; > > that is not one of our goals. Also, standards bodies have accepted the > > challenge of convincing the world that their work is the canonical > version > > of a given specification. Again, that's not one of our goals. (I'd > also > > posit that one of the reasons it is difficult for a standards body to run > a > > successful incubator in-house is because those goals, however good, are > > often at odds with getting immature technology off the ground.)
> > The end result of project that goes through the OWF incubation process is > a > > working specification with clean IP that has demonstrated the ability to > > sustain a diversity of contributors. Nothing more, nothing less.
> > That's not an easy thing to obtain, but it is easier to do that than > build a > > actual standard. The logical consequence is there will be specifications > > that make it through the OWF process that are non-standard. And that's > > okay.
> > I do consider standardization a higher bar, and I hope many projects > > incubated with OWF go on to standardization at IETF, W3C, OASIS, or > > wherever. But that is not our goal either.
> > Regarding IPR, yes, I think what we're trying to do is a) create some > > commonly agreed upon language around specification licensing, a. la. the > CC > > license for copyright or the Apache license for source code, and b) > ensure > > that all project contributors have agreed to those terms. Challenges > like > > dealing with non-contributors and/or trolls are out of scope (partly > because > > I think those problems are intractable).
> > And popping way back up, I really hope we don't spend too much time > creating > > committees. The Apache governance model is pretty much the high end of > what > > I personally have the stomach for. The OWF governance model should be > > optimized for participation by busy engineers, not full-timers.
> > Cheers,
> > -DeWitt
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 4:48 AM, Ben Laurie <b...@google.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 12:02 PM, Danny Weitzner <djweitz...@gmail.com> > >> wrote:
> >> > I agree that creating a zone of greater IPR certainty with lower > >> > negotiation costs is a good goal.
> >> > On Jul 24, 11:08 pm, "Gabe Wachob" <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote: > >> >> An early way I'm describing the Open Web Foundation is (as Scott > says) > >> >> not a Standards Body, but a "IPR DMZ" - (an intellectual property > >> >> rights demilitarized zone).
> >> > Not to force the analogy, but I'd suggest that demilitarization is > >> > hard to achieve in the patent licensing world simply because there > >> > are too many insurgencies (trolls and even legitimate technology > >> > developers) whose business model is to make money by sitting outside > >> > community processes and pouncing when the opportunity arise. I'll > >> > leave the insurgency/counter-insurgency discussion off here... :-)
> >> > I would suggest that goal might be IRP safe passage. A set of terms > >> > that participants can agree to on a no-negotiation basis and then > >> > attach to the work that they do. As others have said, this follows the > >> > Creative Commons and open source model. There's no guarantee that the > >> > license attached to a document is actually cleared, but at least > >> > everyone is talking the same language.
> >> I think it is a given that we can only bind participants to IPR > >> agreements. Patent trolls are out of scope.
> >> >> Most folks who are hearing about this haven't directly participated > in > >> >> a community standards effort, or a more formal standards body. They > >> >> think the W3C/IETF/OASIS "covers it".
> >> >> But I think the sense of folks here is that there needs to be > >> >> something lighter weight that's only focused on the minimum needed > for > >> >> a spec to become widely adoptable. For me, thats IPR hygiene -- > almost > >> >> everything else can be done *easily* without an org (save, maybe the > >> >> organizational standup of a new org to hold/manage IPR). Having > >> >> slogged through this IPR policy stuff several times,I'm really happy > >> >> to see this effort to create a reusable framework for community > >> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> > !!
> >> >> efforts. I only hope it remains lightweight and facilitates the > widest > >> >> range of community efforts as possible.
On Jul 25, 9:36 am, "Gabe Wachob" <gwac...@wachob.com> wrote:
> James-
> I have been an OASIS TC chair for almost 6 years. I totally agree
> that hte model should be OASIS lite. In fact, I have been arguing to
> those who would listen that OASIS should just drop its membership fees
> for individuals... and then it would be pretty good (the process needs
> a little fat-trimming in OASIS admittedly).
I'd agree with this - I think OWF would do well to open a dialogue
with OASIS. And I'd definitely agree with adding a no-charge
membership category over there.
I do think they need to go further with their liberalisation of IPR
terms though. Adding the RF template (and making it the implied
default for new work) was an excellent move, but RF isn't enough for
open source. Open source needs the be sure that any declared patents
will be available without restrictions of any kind, financial or
otherwise.
On Jul 25, 1:48 pm, "Ben Laurie" <b...@google.com> wrote:
> I think it is a given that we can only bind participants to IPR
> agreements. Patent trolls are out of scope.
Totally agree. However, binding participants is probably enough since
almost all patents in a given area will arise from the work of
participants; trolls don't file patents. We need to make sure that any
non-assert is binding on participants /and their heirs and assigns/ so
that trolls are unable to attack in the future.
Webmink wrote: > I do think they need to go further with their liberalisation of IPR > terms though. Adding the RF template (and making it the implied > default for new work) was an excellent move, but RF isn't enough for > open source. Open source needs the be sure that any declared patents > will be available without restrictions of any kind, financial or > otherwise.
What about compliance to the standard?
Arguably the most important reason for a standard is to assure interoperability among different implementations. Contributing one's IP (whether licensed or through non-assertion) to a standard with minimal restrictions is fine, but shouldn't that extend only to those compliant with the standard? I don't mind giving IP to help create a standard, even on a royalty-free basis, but I'm not too excited about non-assertion clauses that favor forking and potential incompatibility.
Wouldn't compliance be an obvious and fair quid-pro-quo for IP contributions? That would make it at least one kind of restriction on declared patents that makes sense.
It's my opinion that formal compliance can come later. I think the IETF's model of two independent interoperable implementations is a pretty decent start toward compliance. :)
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Joe Andrieu <j...@andrieu.net> wrote:
> Webmink wrote: > > I do think they need to go further with their liberalisation of IPR > > terms though. Adding the RF template (and making it the implied > > default for new work) was an excellent move, but RF isn't enough for > > open source. Open source needs the be sure that any declared patents > > will be available without restrictions of any kind, financial or > > otherwise.
> What about compliance to the standard?
> Arguably the most important reason for a standard is to assure > interoperability among different implementations. Contributing one's IP > (whether licensed or through non-assertion) to a standard with minimal > restrictions is fine, but shouldn't that extend only to those compliant > with > the standard? I don't mind giving IP to help create a standard, even on a > royalty-free basis, but I'm not too excited about non-assertion clauses > that > favor forking and potential incompatibility.
> Wouldn't compliance be an obvious and fair quid-pro-quo for IP > contributions? That would make it at least one kind of restriction on > declared patents that makes sense.
To build on this, someone at the BOF last night was talking about how compliance testing is a bit different in a networked world. In many cases, someone only implementing a part of a specification will end up hurting themselves.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:07 AM, David Recordon <record...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's my opinion that formal compliance can come later. I think the IETF's > model of two independent interoperable implementations is a pretty decent > start toward compliance. :)
> --David
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Joe Andrieu <j...@andrieu.net> wrote:
>> Webmink wrote: >> > I do think they need to go further with their liberalisation of IPR >> > terms though. Adding the RF template (and making it the implied >> > default for new work) was an excellent move, but RF isn't enough for >> > open source. Open source needs the be sure that any declared patents >> > will be available without restrictions of any kind, financial or >> > otherwise.
>> What about compliance to the standard?
>> Arguably the most important reason for a standard is to assure >> interoperability among different implementations. Contributing one's IP >> (whether licensed or through non-assertion) to a standard with minimal >> restrictions is fine, but shouldn't that extend only to those compliant >> with >> the standard? I don't mind giving IP to help create a standard, even on a >> royalty-free basis, but I'm not too excited about non-assertion clauses >> that >> favor forking and potential incompatibility.
>> Wouldn't compliance be an obvious and fair quid-pro-quo for IP >> contributions? That would make it at least one kind of restriction on >> declared patents that makes sense.
> Wouldn't compliance be an obvious and fair quid-pro-quo for IP > contributions? That would make it at least one kind of restriction on > declared patents that makes sense.
It makes sense at first sight, but opens up a hole for gaming. Measuring "compliance" is really, really hard, and introducing any kind of dependency for IP grant ("compliance" and "necessary claims" being examples) immediately renders open source developers unsafe due to uncertainty.
* Adding "required claims" language (where the grant of rights is dependent on the only way of implementing your software being to use the patent) requires an outside expert to help determine eligibility. * Requiring "compliance" renders the rapidly iterative "use & improve" approach of open source impossible as only the final, "compliant" version will be eligible for the grant (and even then only after following some form of onerous certification process).
I recommend that OWF not allow either "necessary claims" or "compliance" as predicates to IP grant. A straightforward, unconditional, sublicensable, non-expiring and ownership-change- surviving non-assert is the answer in my view. Plenty of dragons to tame in those words, mind you.
Bit of a slippery slope, David. I like the IETF interop model, which
is part of why its such a good *standards body*. If you're not going
to be a standards body, you have to be very careful about what you
mean here. Why not just "graduate" a spec in terms of IPR clarity and
then let the community choose how it goes towards standardisation,
whether its IETF, W3C, OASIS, CEN, ISO or UN/CEFACT? Those
organisations have the mechanisms for sorting out things like
compliance and conformance specifications and testing/certification
processes.
The fact you are even *thinking* about interop testing and compliance
should raise alarm bells. Are people working on their community-
generated specs in OWF expected to conform to a specific development
process and quality assurance criteria? Set by whom? Or can they
develop their spec however they please and OWF offers them an IPR
*service* and some hosting space if they want it?
Here's a scale:
1. Sourceforge -> 2. Apache -> 3. W3C -> 4. ISO
Currently I'd say OWF sounds like its registering between 2.5 and 2.9.
I'd prefer it to be more around 1.5.
Cheers!
S
On Jul 26, 9:07 am, "David Recordon" <record...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's my opinion that formal compliance can come later. I think the IETF's
> model of two independent interoperable implementations is a pretty decent
> start toward compliance. :)
> --David
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:01 AM, Joe Andrieu <j...@andrieu.net> wrote:
> > Webmink wrote:
> > > I do think they need to go further with their liberalisation of IPR
> > > terms though. Adding the RF template (and making it the implied
> > > default for new work) was an excellent move, but RF isn't enough for
> > > open source. Open source needs the be sure that any declared patents
> > > will be available without restrictions of any kind, financial or
> > > otherwise.
> > What about compliance to the standard?
> > Arguably the most important reason for a standard is to assure
> > interoperability among different implementations. Contributing one's IP
> > (whether licensed or through non-assertion) to a standard with minimal
> > restrictions is fine, but shouldn't that extend only to those compliant
> > with
> > the standard? I don't mind giving IP to help create a standard, even on a
> > royalty-free basis, but I'm not too excited about non-assertion clauses
> > that
> > favor forking and potential incompatibility.
> > Wouldn't compliance be an obvious and fair quid-pro-quo for IP
> > contributions? That would make it at least one kind of restriction on
> > declared patents that makes sense.
Seems to me the difficulty with compliance depends, in large part, on whether or not the spec is complete enough to test. As you imply, an underspecified standard is easy to rev and hard to test for compliance.
But that doesn't mean you can't bake compliance into the spec, with a test suite.
The last thing I want to do is get into a market-driven standards war with Microsoft (or any big company) over which variant of a spec is going to actually be supported by the majority of service/content providers on the net.
We've seen that mess with HTML, css, and javascript. There's gotta be a better way.
It seems that the extra work to properly define compliance more than pays for itself in interoperability. Smart wording of compliance licensing could manage a reasonable distinction between development and production code. Code in development must be able to be iteratively evolved, but, IMO, it shouldn't be moved to production until it is actually compliant with the standard.
Isn't it precisely that kind of distinction that OWF is here to figure out? If all we're here for is to define good IPR = non-assertion, that seems to miss the point. Mind you, compliance-based IPR policy may not be right for every project, but seems like finding one way to do it well is the kind of thing that could be leveraged across a lot of projects.
> -----Original Message----- > From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web- > discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Simon Phipps > Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 1:41 AM > To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Open Web Foundation characterization
> On Jul 26, 2008, at 10:01, Joe Andrieu wrote:
> > Wouldn't compliance be an obvious and fair quid-pro-quo for IP > > contributions? That would make it at least one kind of restriction on > > declared patents that makes sense.
> It makes sense at first sight, but opens up a hole for gaming. > Measuring "compliance" is really, really hard, and introducing any > kind of dependency for IP grant ("compliance" and "necessary claims" > being examples) immediately renders open source developers unsafe due > to uncertainty.
> * Adding "required claims" language (where the grant of rights is > dependent on the only way of implementing your software being to use > the patent) requires an outside expert to help determine eligibility. > * Requiring "compliance" renders the rapidly iterative "use & > improve" approach of open source impossible as only the final, > "compliant" version will be eligible for the grant (and even then only > after following some form of onerous certification process).
> I recommend that OWF not allow either "necessary claims" or > "compliance" as predicates to IP grant. A straightforward, > unconditional, sublicensable, non-expiring and ownership-change- > surviving non-assert is the answer in my view. Plenty of dragons to > tame in those words, mind you.
My instinct is that compliance is out of scope for OWF. To David's comment, now that we live in a networked ecosystem where a bigger challenge is buy-in from the web community at large, the work of the OWF incubator should be about helping produce clear, straight-forward and from my experience, narrowly focused specifications focused on solving tractable, salient problems. While initial interop may be necessary to "graduate" (a term I'm not yet comfortable with), our emphasis and resources should not (if up to me *shall not*) be applied to compliance because of the reasons Simon cited: the cost to community-driven projects is prohibitive and inhibitive and market-driven adoption can be applied to pick from competive specifications. I think we're also looking to increase the degree to which individual actors, looking to scratch an itch, can influence technological innovation.
Two examples: the Delicious API vs the Ma.gnolia API. The latter was richer, possibly better and more intentionally designed; the former simpler and easier to implement. The latter took off as such and only after Ma.gnolia mirrored the delicious API did people start to build against it. Their was no formal compliance testing -- either it worked or it didn't, and if it didn't you spent more in support costs dealing with angry or frustrated customers.
Second is the Flickr API, where a number of services have spring up that implement it, or portions of it, depending on the purpose of the application. Again, no formal compliance process there, and yet their API specification has been both very successful and quite influential on other similar APIs.
Those are cases informing my thinking here -- as well as cases like OpenDD or oEmbed, where the specs might be a page or two long and no more. You typically need compliance testing in systems where complexity requires more attention than a single developer's. I think we'd like to enable and encourage an ecosystem of simpler, more direct technologies and then see where that leads us, through the application of Darwinian open source survival-of-the-easiest to socialize and implement!
> Seems to me the difficulty with compliance depends, in large part, on > whether or not the spec is complete enough to test. As you imply, an > underspecified standard is easy to rev and hard to test for compliance.
> But that doesn't mean you can't bake compliance into the spec, with a test > suite.
> The last thing I want to do is get into a market-driven standards war with > Microsoft (or any big company) over which variant of a spec is going to > actually be supported by the majority of service/content providers on the > net.
> We've seen that mess with HTML, css, and javascript. There's gotta be a > better way.
> It seems that the extra work to properly define compliance more than pays > for itself in interoperability. Smart wording of compliance licensing could > manage a reasonable distinction between development and production code. > Code in development must be able to be iteratively evolved, but, IMO, it > shouldn't be moved to production until it is actually compliant with the > standard.
> Isn't it precisely that kind of distinction that OWF is here to figure out? > If all we're here for is to define good IPR = non-assertion, that seems to > miss the point. Mind you, compliance-based IPR policy may not be right for > every project, but seems like finding one way to do it well is the kind of > thing that could be leveraged across a lot of projects.
>> -----Original Message----- >> From: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web- >> discuss@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Simon Phipps >> Sent: Saturday, July 26, 2008 1:41 AM >> To: open-web-discuss@googlegroups.com >> Subject: Re: Open Web Foundation characterization
>> On Jul 26, 2008, at 10:01, Joe Andrieu wrote:
>> > Wouldn't compliance be an obvious and fair quid-pro-quo for IP >> > contributions? That would make it at least one kind of restriction on >> > declared patents that makes sense.
>> It makes sense at first sight, but opens up a hole for gaming. >> Measuring "compliance" is really, really hard, and introducing any >> kind of dependency for IP grant ("compliance" and "necessary claims" >> being examples) immediately renders open source developers unsafe due >> to uncertainty.
>> * Adding "required claims" language (where the grant of rights is >> dependent on the only way of implementing your software being to use >> the patent) requires an outside expert to help determine eligibility. >> * Requiring "compliance" renders the rapidly iterative "use & >> improve" approach of open source impossible as only the final, >> "compliant" version will be eligible for the grant (and even then only >> after following some form of onerous certification process).
>> I recommend that OWF not allow either "necessary claims" or >> "compliance" as predicates to IP grant. A straightforward, >> unconditional, sublicensable, non-expiring and ownership-change- >> surviving non-assert is the answer in my view. Plenty of dragons to >> tame in those words, mind you.
>> S.
-- Chris Messina Citizen-Participant & Open Source Advocate-at-Large factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org citizenagency.com # vidoop.com This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private
