OASIS considering RAND working group

[Lawrence Rosen]

To: Open Web Foundation discussion list

I recently learned that OASIS may charter a working group to standardize on the "Semantic

Mapping of XML (MOX)". Buried in the proposal [1] is the following statement:

(1)(e) Specification of the IPR Mode under which the TC 

will operate. 

The TC shall operate under: RAND

I hope that nobody in OWF will support or cooperate with any such RAND working groups. In fact, this attempt by OASIS to create a RAND working group gives OWF the opportunity to do this kind of standardization work instead of them. I can't imagine that many companies want to pay royalties to practice semantic mapping of XML in industry standard ways.

 

/Larry

 

[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-charter-discuss/200809/msg00008.html

 

cc: OASIS Board of Directors via Eduardo Gutentag

 

Lawrence Rosen

Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com)

3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482

707-485-1242 * cell: 707-478-8932 * fax: 707-485-1243

Skype: LawrenceRosen

 

[Ben Laurie]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> To: Open Web Foundation discussion list
>
>
>
> I recently learned that OASIS may charter a working group to standardize on
> the "Semantic
>
> Mapping of XML (MOX)". Buried in the proposal [1] is the following
> statement:
>
>
>
> (1)(e) Specification of the IPR Mode under which the TC
>
> will operate.
>
> The TC shall operate under: RAND
>
>
>
> I hope that nobody in OWF will support or cooperate with any such RAND
> working groups.

Certainly they are counter to the aims of the OWF.

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Larry,

You make it sound like OASIS chooses the RAND form.

The conveners chose that among the three IPR modes that OASIS currently has
(1) RAND, (2) RF on RAND, and (3) RF on Limited Terms (a variant of RF on
RAND, the form used by the OpenDocument TC, the recently-chartered ODF
Interoperability and Conformance TC, and others). The recently-formed
Identity Metasystem Interoperability (IMI) TC, also of some interest to OWF
participants, is chartered with RF on RAND. The CMIS TC proposed charter,
now under discussion, also specifies RF on RAND mode.

It is of course always possible for participants to unilaterally provide
non-asserts that are more generous than the agreed RF on RAND or RF on
Limited Terms in exactly the way Sun has done with OpenDocument.

The MOX charter is up for discussion and you can see that the choice of pure
RAND is being questioned, among other observations on the list:
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/oasis-charter-discuss/200809/msg00019.h
tml
Any OASIS member (individual member or member from an affiliated
organization) can comment on the list, and as you've demonstrated, the
archive is public.

There will be a convener call on Wednesday, September 24, to look at the
next steps and I will listen in to observe any discussion on that choice.

If a call for participation goes out with the charter unchanged (there is no
barrier to that happening), the next test is whether they can actually form
a TC. It is likely that they can. We'll see. (I just learned that UOML-X
was a recapturing of UOML precisely because they needed to choose a
more-generous IPR mode -- you can't change the IPR mode once an OASIS
committee is formed, so it is a big deal to make a new committee just to
accomplish that.)

- Dennis

Dennis E. Hamilton
------------------
NuovoDoc: Design for Document System Interoperability
mailto:Dennis....@acm.org | gsm:+1-206.779.9430
http://NuovoDoc.com http://ODMA.info/dev/ http://nfoWorks.org

-----Original Message-----
From: open-web...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:open-web...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 16:49
To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Eduardo....@Sun.COM
Subject: OASIS considering RAND working group

To: Open Web Foundation discussion list

I recently learned that OASIS may charter a working group to standardize on
the "Semantic
Mapping of XML (MOX)". Buried in the proposal [1] is the following
statement:

(1)(e) Specification of the IPR Mode under which the TC
will operate.
The TC shall operate under: RAND

[ ... ]

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

I did sit in on the just-concluded Convener Call for OASIS Semantic Mapping
of XML (MOX) TC. My understanding is that the TC will be formed under the
IPR RAND (not RF RAND or RF Limited Terms) mode, retaining the possibility
of licensing and royalty/fee requirements.

- Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Dennis E. Hamilton
http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/bb9d034f0114604f?hl=en
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 21:02
To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: OASIS considering RAND working group

Larry,

You make it sound like OASIS chooses the RAND form.

The conveners chose that among the three IPR modes that OASIS currently has
(1) RAND, (2) RF on RAND, and (3) RF on Limited Terms (a variant of RF on
RAND, the form used by the OpenDocument TC, the recently-chartered ODF
Interoperability and Conformance TC, and others). The recently-formed
Identity Metasystem Interoperability (IMI) TC, also of some interest to OWF
participants, is chartered with RF on RAND. The CMIS TC proposed charter,
now under discussion, also specifies RF on RAND mode.

[ ... ]

There will be a convener call on Wednesday, September 24, to look at the
next steps and I will listen in to observe any discussion on that choice.

If a call for participation goes out with the charter unchanged (there is no
barrier to that happening), the next test is whether they can actually form

a TC. It is likely that they can. [ ... ]

[David Orchard]

I was just sharing a ride with TBL and saw this on my iphone so I showed it to him.  Should be interesting to see if he/w3c says anything..   Seems at complete opposite goals of the Semantic Web and W3C to me.

Cheers,
Dave

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

Looks like this effort is being proposed by MITRE, Nortel, Booz Allen Hamilton, MIT Lincoln Lab, The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, and PSU. I wonder who in that group is pushing for RAND instead of RF on LT.

 

EHL

[Lawrence Rosen]

Dennis Hamilton reported:

> I did sit in on the just-concluded Convener Call for OASIS Semantic
> Mapping
> of XML (MOX) TC. My understanding is that the TC will be formed under the
> IPR RAND (not RF RAND or RF Limited Terms) mode, retaining the possibility
> of licensing and royalty/fee requirements.

Thanks for the update, Dennis. I'm not surprised. Unlike OWF, the OASIS IPR
policy permits RAND licensing models in their working groups. Many
participants in the open source community objected to that OASIS policy when
it was ratified a few years ago, but despite a public outcry we lost that
private OASIS vote.

Now, with this Open Web Foundation, we have the opportunity to vote with our
feet, our hands, our brains, and our software. If we choose to, we can
advertise the Open Web Foundation as the home for web standards that will
never knowingly be encumbered by non-free patents. That's why our own IPR
policy is so important and potentially so influential.

/Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-web...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-
> dis...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis E. Hamilton
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:03 PM
> To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: OASIS considering RAND working group

[LR:] <snip>

[Stephan...@nokia.com]

Hi Larry,

I don't see a problem in spirit with the OWF "as the home for web
standards that will never knowingly be encumbered by non-free patents",
as you put it. It's a laudable goal to work towards such an
organization. We need one. And, of course, the devil lies in the
details. Let me go over just two:

First, the "never". If your statement is taken verbatim, what would a
community do (and what would the OWF do) if, after a standard is set and
deployed, someone comes with an older patent and starts asserting it?
Someone who can reasonably say that his people have never looked into
OWF work, perhaps precisely because of the OWF's restriction on patent
use? (So that Stambler v. Diebold or Stryker v. Zimmer does not apply?)
Would the community at that point need to revoke the standard, design
around the asserted patent, or what? That obviously leads to document
instability, something that may not be the best choice for a some
oputside the FOSS communities. Perhaps even to product instability,
which would not be acceptable to many (ourside the FOSS community). Or
just live with/ignore the situation? There's a tradeoff to make. In
any case, we better are not too ambitious in our wording and advertising
of the "never". Stating an intention may be fine.

Second, the definition of "non-free" requires some thought. If, with
"non-free", you mean "royalty-free", "no fincancial compensation" or
somethiong alone these lines, I would feel much more comfortable. But
if "non-free" means an unrestricted non-assert (no reciprocity clause,
and, as a result, dimished defensive patent value), I don't think that a
company like Nokia would be overly supportive to those communities.

On a much broader note, in my personal opinion, if you want to ensure
that a spec created under OWF polices be really not encumbered by
"non-free" patents, then the OWF should not recommend that its policies
be used by communities that attempt to compete with SDOs having
"non-free" patent policies (by whatever definition you choose). The
chance to run into "non-free" patents is just too high. If that
happens, it's not only to the users' and that communities' damage, but
also the OWF's reputation could be at stake.

Regards,
Stephan

[Lawrence Rosen]

Hi Stephan,

I agree with all of your concerns. My specific comments are below.

/Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-web...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-
> dis...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephan...@nokia.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 11:33 AM
> To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: RE: OASIS considering RAND working group
>
>

> Hi Larry,
>
> I don't see a problem in spirit with the OWF "as the home for web
> standards that will never knowingly be encumbered by non-free patents",
> as you put it. It's a laudable goal to work towards such an
> organization. We need one. And, of course, the devil lies in the
> details. Let me go over just two:
>
> First, the "never". If your statement is taken verbatim, what would a
> community do (and what would the OWF do) if, after a standard is set and
> deployed, someone comes with an older patent and starts asserting it?
> Someone who can reasonably say that his people have never looked into
> OWF work, perhaps precisely because of the OWF's restriction on patent
> use? (So that Stambler v. Diebold or Stryker v. Zimmer does not apply?)
> Would the community at that point need to revoke the standard, design
> around the asserted patent, or what? That obviously leads to document
> instability, something that may not be the best choice for a some
> oputside the FOSS communities. Perhaps even to product instability,
> which would not be acceptable to many (ourside the FOSS community). Or
> just live with/ignore the situation? There's a tradeoff to make. In
> any case, we better are not too ambitious in our wording and advertising
> of the "never". Stating an intention may be fine.

[LR:] The solution in W3C was to authorize the creation of a special patent
working group whenever such situations occur. At that time, the community
can discuss appropriate resolutions to unanticipated patent encumbrances and
react accordingly. Those situations need not be pre-scripted. Furthermore,
the FTC has generally blessed such cooperative behavior by standards
organizations when their standards are later threatened by patents.

This is an appropriate topic for our IP committee.

> Second, the definition of "non-free" requires some thought. If, with
> "non-free", you mean "royalty-free", "no fincancial compensation" or
> somethiong alone these lines, I would feel much more comfortable. But
> if "non-free" means an unrestricted non-assert (no reciprocity clause,
> and, as a result, dimished defensive patent value), I don't think that a
> company like Nokia would be overly supportive to those communities.

[LR:] Thank you for pointing this out. I struggled in vain to condense my
philosophy into a single sentence. Obviously that can't be done. The
definition of "free" (or rather "open") will be a harder task. I bet it
takes more than one hyphenated phrase.

> On a much broader note, in my personal opinion, if you want to ensure
> that a spec created under OWF polices be really not encumbered by
> "non-free" patents, then the OWF should not recommend that its policies
> be used by communities that attempt to compete with SDOs having
> "non-free" patent policies (by whatever definition you choose). The
> chance to run into "non-free" patents is just too high. If that
> happens, it's not only to the users' and that communities' damage, but
> also the OWF's reputation could be at stake.

[LR:] Encouraging OWF to lead on open IP policies and licenses is a good
thing. Competing with other SDOs who, for reasons of organizational inertia
or proprietary tendencies, refuse to participate in open standards is also a
good thing. Of course that shouldn't mean that we stumble gratuitously into
patented terrain just to prove our virility.

[Chris Messina]

First, I thought it'd be useful to play a little acronym bingo for those just joining us from home:

OASIS: Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards

IP: intellectual property

IPR: intellectual property rights

RAND: reasonable and non-discriminatory (see http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php#licensing_req)

RF on RAND: reasonable and non-discriminatory and royalty-free

RF on Limited Terms: see http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php#s10.2.3

TC: technical committee

ODF: OpenDocument Foundation
IMI: Identity Metasystem Interoperability 

OWF: Open Web Foundation
CMIS:  Content Management Interoperability Services
MOX: Semantic Mapping of XML

UOML-X: OASIS Unstructured Operation Markup Language eXtended

FOSS: Free/Open Source Software

SDO: Standard development organization

Second, I would say that I generally agree with what Larry has stated below.

Part of the purpose of forming a community around OWF is to develop approaches to issues as they emerge, given the IPR scheme that we produce. I think that it's very fortuitous for us to be able to inherit and learn from prior organizations that have dealt with all manner of threats to openness, freedom and "freeness" in the past. 

The hope is that by also changing the original structure of the organization (in this case, OWF) to be more responsive to current trends, behaviors and practices, and to take advantage of working at internet-scale (that is, to leverage the wide work of groups from the community and birthed in the wild, rather than only originating from a charter approved by the organization as a first step) we disseminate both responsibility and possibility to the commons, allowing for communities to get work done on a decentralized basis, but to also enable larger corporations to sort out how they will work around, or with, each others' IPR portfolios, or to guard against submarine threats.

I personally want to ensure that OWF projects and policies are of the "freest" kind -- that support the underpinnings of an unencumbered web -- and which may rub against the grain of traditional legal institutions, protections and economic benefits. There are other organizations designed with corporations and companies in mind; my preference (and why I personally am committed) is that the OWF take the side of communities at large as its first-priority benefactors.

Chris

--
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

[Ben Laurie]

I am very much in favour of reciprocity, particularly if it is used to
defend all implementers of the spec and not just the IPR contributor.

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Without much explanation, it was announced on Thursday, 2008-10-02, that the
proposed Charter for the OASIS Semantic Mapping of XML (MOX) has been
withdrawn, so there is no MOX TC being formed at this point.

A Charter can be resubmitted in the future. I expect that will start the TC
approval and setup clock anew. There is no indication why the charter is
being reworked. In particular, it might have nothing to do with the IPR
mode.

I am going to stop following this.

- Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: open-web...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:open-web...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis E. Hamilton
Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 18:03
To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: OASIS considering RAND working group

I did sit in on the just-concluded Convener Call for OASIS Semantic Mapping
of XML (MOX) TC. My understanding is that the TC will be formed under the
IPR RAND (not RF RAND or RF Limited Terms) mode, retaining the possibility
of licensing and royalty/fee requirements.

- Dennis

[ ... ]

[Lawrence Rosen]

Dennis Hamilton wrote:
> Without much explanation, it was announced on Thursday, 2008-10-02, that
> the
> proposed Charter for the OASIS Semantic Mapping of XML (MOX) has been
> withdrawn, so there is no MOX TC being formed at this point.

Dennis, thanks for the update. That's a good move for OASIS, whatever their
reason.

/Larry

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

Larry,

I should have provided what little more information that I have.

As far as I can tell, the proposers/conveners elected not to go forward at
this time. I have no other information about what led them to do that and
when they might be expecting to resubmit.

There's no indication that the choice of IPR mode had anything to do with
it. On the convener call, it appeared that all OASIS-required prerequisites
to a call for participation were being satisfied.

- Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Rosen
http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/f90ce42c5379de3a?hl=en
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 23:04
To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: OASIS considering RAND working group

Dennis Hamilton wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/f17a0779b59391c9?hl=en

> Without much explanation, it was announced on Thursday, 2008-10-02, that
> the
> proposed Charter for the OASIS Semantic Mapping of XML (MOX) has been
> withdrawn, so there is no MOX TC being formed at this point.

Dennis, thanks for the update. That's a good move for OASIS, whatever their
reason.

/Larry

[ ... ]

[Lawrence Rosen]

Dennis Hamilton wrote:
> > Without much explanation, it was announced on Thursday, 2008-10-02, that
> > the
> > proposed Charter for the OASIS Semantic Mapping of XML (MOX) has been
> > withdrawn, so there is no MOX TC being formed at this point.

and

> There's no indication that the choice of IPR mode had anything
> to do with it.

I reply only because my further comments may help explain why I look forward
to working with OWF.

From the vantage point of an open source licensor, RAND standards are an
abomination. We can't implement them. Their patent licenses are incompatible
with our own licenses.

Standards organizations like OASIS have a constituency to protect and that
requires them occasionally to accept the notion of an abominable RAND
industry standard. I object every time they try.

And I express delight every time that fails. I praise whatever reasons
worked in our favor. Thank you OASIS for not pursuing a RAND working group.

Thank you Open Web Foundation for pursuing a better alternative.

/Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-web...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-
> dis...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dennis E. Hamilton

[Gabe Wachob]

I am not aware of a OASIS TC that has adopted anything but RF on
limited terms (most open) at least recently. I think as far as
standards intended for broad adoption, RAND is (obviously) FAIL. Open
source implementations are *that* important.

-Gabe

--
Gabe Wachob / gwa...@wachob.com \ http://blog.wachob.com

[Simon Phipps]

On Oct 5, 2008, at 19:52, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> From the vantage point of an open source licensor, RAND standards
> are an
> abomination. We can't implement them. Their patent licenses are
> incompatible
> with our own licenses.

In fact, I would go further and say that RF licenses are mostly
unworkable since all they limit is the charging of fees, not the
imposition of restrictions backed by implied patent threats. The only
IP policy that an open source community can truly endorse is a sub-
licensable non-assert policy, probably a blanket one at that.

> Standards organizations like OASIS have a constituency to protect
> and that
> requires them occasionally to accept the notion of an abominable RAND
> industry standard. I object every time they try.

And I'm afraid I think you protest too much. Reformers welcomed at
OASIS have successfully introduced and popularised an RF licensing
mode that is so obviously correct that misplaced attempts to use one
of the other modes are essentially ignored these days. Your attack on
OASIS when that reform was enacted was one of the most unfortunate
incidents of friendly fire in recent memory and the harm it did
lingers on. I for one would be very grateful if you could avoid using
OWF as a venue for similar activity, please.

> And I express delight every time that fails. I praise whatever reasons
> worked in our favor. Thank you OASIS for not pursuing a RAND working
> group.

OASIS does not. It's people using OASIS as a venue who do. And they
will most likely fail any time they do from now on. OASIS, however,
maintains its broad membership by remaining notionally inclusive.
There's a lesson for us in that.

> Thank you Open Web Foundation for pursuing a better alternative.

There's really no reason why OWF would offer an IPR option for the old
order. The only policy we should consider is an non-assert policy, in
my view - no anathemic RAND, obviously, but no RF either. We need to
craft a rational and balanced non-assert statement that can be
embraced by as many participants as possible - including old-order
corporates such as those OASIS harbours.

S.

[Chris Messina]

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Simon Phipps <web...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Open Web Foundation for pursuing a better alternative.

There's really no reason why OWF would offer an IPR option for the old
order. The only policy we should consider is an non-assert policy, in
my view - no anathemic RAND, obviously, but no RF either. We need to
craft a rational and balanced non-assert statement that can be
embraced by as many participants as possible - including old-order
corporates such as those OASIS harbours.

Nor should we confuse what we're doing with establishing the end-all, be-all, last-foundation-offering-an-IPR-scheme that ever-will-there-be. That's not the point of OWF. This is not Highlander; there can be more than one.

I'm as much opposed to inheriting legacy battles and politics as I am to watering down the thrust of this initiative. Just because George Sr didn't take it Baghdad in a previous presidency doesn't mean that future heir-presidents must "finish the job". In other words, just because other organizations have succumb to certain big-co approaches doesn't mean that we need necessarily fight those battles.

Reigning in scope of our operations is what will enable us to be successful, and for our work to resonate. The goal is to enable the diversity of choice in the marketplace, not to fix patent law. The instrument we're using are non-asserts. Our value is to codify how such agreements can be applied in the wild, and by any manner of organization running up against the same problems that many of our groups have faced time and again, and to lower the cost for good technology to be adopted by larger organizations by minimizing the legal negotiations necessary to come to understanding between disparate parties.

In any case, I'm simply invoking my predilection to limit scope and to stay on target, Gold Leader.

Chris

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

The Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) Technical Committee
call for participation is expected to come out tomorrow, October 6. The
latest charter draft I've seen has RF on RAND, not RF on Limited Terms. So
we know the worst it can turn out to be (i.e., requiring explicit
non-sublicensable license agreements, with additional limitations by the
licensors). It could turn out better than that (e.g., an unrestricted
non-assert for some definite scope of implementations and versions of the
specification), but it can't be worse.

The UOML-X TC charter of March, 2008, is also RF on RAND. This committee
was apparently a recreation of the UOML TC, which was chartered as RAND, but
chartered as RF on RAND. I wasn't around for that, but apparently the
rechartering was done by the participants, not OASIS, as a response to
objections from the open-source/-standards community. (Under current OASIS
rules, it is not possible to change the IPR mode of a TC once it is
established.) My understanding is that the Committee Draft for UOML Part 1
version 1 just passed an OASIS vote for adoption as an OASIS Standard.

I look forward to seeing how OWF provides an insightful and
easily-understood approach to working in a world of software and
business-process patents. Maybe we should not distract ourselves with how
OASIS works out its destiny with regard to its IPR modes (all of which are
some flavor of RAND, including RF on Limited Terms).

- Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: open-web...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:open-web...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Gabe Wachob
Sent: Sunday, October 05, 2008 12:16
To: open-web...@googlegroups.com

[Lawrence Rosen]

Simon Phipps wrote:
> I for one would be very grateful if you could avoid using
> OWF as a venue for similar activity, please.

Question for this list: Is it appropriate when we are planning OWF's IP
strategy to discuss and possibly criticize the IP policies of other
standards organizations?

I note for the record that my previous emails were sent only to this list
and cc'd only to Eduardo Gutentag, whom I know personally and who is on the
OASIS Board of Directors. If I violated any standard of behavior in doing
so, please explain how. I would like to understand the limits I must obey
for the emails I send here.

/Larry

[Ben Laurie]

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Simon Phipps <web...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>

> On Oct 5, 2008, at 19:52, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>> From the vantage point of an open source licensor, RAND standards
>> are an
>> abomination. We can't implement them. Their patent licenses are
>> incompatible
>> with our own licenses.
>
> In fact, I would go further and say that RF licenses are mostly
> unworkable since all they limit is the charging of fees, not the
> imposition of restrictions backed by implied patent threats. The only
> IP policy that an open source community can truly endorse is a sub-
> licensable non-assert policy, probably a blanket one at that.

How about a sub-licensable licence?

[Ben Laurie]

As far as I'm concerned you can discuss whatever you want. Clearly
discussing other IP policies is a useful activity.

>
> /Larry
>
>
> >
>

[Chris Messina]

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Ben Laurie <be...@google.com> wrote:

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
>
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>> I for one would be very grateful if you could avoid using
>> OWF as a venue for similar activity, please.
>
> Question for this list: Is it appropriate when we are planning OWF's IP
> strategy to discuss and possibly criticize the IP policies of other
> standards organizations?
>

As far as I'm concerned you can discuss whatever you want. Clearly
discussing other IP policies is a useful activity.

It's useful to look at prior work, yes, and it's useful to know what's worked and hasn't worked before, but only insomuch as we stick within a fairly limited purview to the work at hand.

One of the roles I tried to play with the OAuth work was to limit scope and to say no a lot. It helps that I'm not terribly technical (relatively speaking) so that I can constantly ask questions as to whether a given path of inquiry is relevant to the overall stated objectives we have. It's sometimes attractive to expand scope, or to aim to solve more problems at once because of the perception of expediency, but oftentimes those types of endeavors often end up being distracting, counterproductive or alienating.

Now, I'm not characterizing anything in particular as such, only explaining my participation and my concern about inheriting issues that are not material to the current thrust to get the OWF up and functional sooner than later, given the current scope of engagement.

I know, for example, that Portable Contacts is going to need to go through all the IPR hurdles that we've just been through with OAuth -- and that other efforts that I'm working on will have the same fate. The sooner the OWF can offer the IPR guidelines, practices and incubation model it's promised, the better for all these projects, and so anything that detracts from or delays arriving at that goal is something that I'll be personally very wary and skeptical of.

I'm only marginally familiar with OASIS, IETF, W3C and similar groups. I've tried reading through their IPR offerings, but they don't seem designed for an audience that includes me. As well, the projects with which I'm engaged could not been not started, and would have little likelihood of success, if they have to go through a consensus/scope building exercise before a line of code were written. And that's the opportunity that OWF should answer.

It's not that looking at other groups or prior art doesn't have its value -- I fully believe that it does! -- only that we should avoid unnecessary politicization where actual use cases exist today that are in need of the kind of things that the OWF set out to initially provide.

[Simon Phipps]

On Oct 5, 2008, at 23:28, Lawrence Rosen wrote:

>
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>> I for one would be very grateful if you could avoid using
>> OWF as a venue for similar activity, please.
>
> Question for this list: Is it appropriate when we are planning OWF's
> IP
> strategy to discuss and possibly criticize the IP policies of other
> standards organizations?

As you are aware I was referring to the campaign which you mounted[1]
just /after/ OASIS introduced a new IPR policy of layered modes[2]
that included one acceptable to open source[3].

As Ben said, discussing and criticising existing examples is fine, and
I'm doing it too. Continuing to imply that stance is appropriate, as
the original post in this thread seemed to me and I suspect others to
be doing, seems inappropriate. All a matter of context :-)

S.

[1] http://perens.com/Articles/OASIS.html
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php
[3] http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php#s10.2.3 -
only marginally acceptable, but acceptable none the less.

[Simon Phipps]

On Oct 5, 2008, at 23:41, Ben Laurie wrote:

>> In fact, I would go further and say that RF licenses are mostly
>> unworkable since all they limit is the charging of fees, not the
>> imposition of restrictions backed by implied patent threats. The only
>> IP policy that an open source community can truly endorse is a sub-
>> licensable non-assert policy, probably a blanket one at that.
>
> How about a sub-licensable licence?

The sort of non-assert embedded within licenses like Apache v2, CDDL
and GPLv3 is pretty good, yes. For specifications I believe we need
participants to make blanket non-assert statements, however, not to
license specific patents. This is for several reasons, including:
* Patents are usually filed in parallel with specification and
implementation activity
* Patent searches are very costly and requiring them is a barrier to
participation for some
* Individual licenses seem a vehicle for gaming, leaving open the
question "what is /not/ covered" and generating uncertainty for
developers later

S.

[Lawrence Rosen]

Simon Phipps suggested:

> The only
> IP policy that an open source community can truly endorse is a sub-
> licensable non-assert policy, probably a blanket one at that.

Here's a blanket sublicenseable patent non-assert that is free for open
source, but it is not free for all commercial purposes.

http://www.international-characters.com/covenant

It would probably not be appropriate for OWF for that reason.

Some of you may have seen this non-assert previously in draft form. The word
"DRAFT" has been removed, and a U.S. patent has actually issued on this
important technology. Other patents are pending here and elsewhere. [Write
me privately if you're curious.]

It is, to coin a phrase that I hope doesn't catch on, the GPL of patent
covenants, great for open source but not necessarily great for commercial
standards. Unless, of course, non-discriminatory patent royalties are
acceptable for commercial ventures, as is the case in many other standards
organizations.

/Larry

[Simon Phipps]

On Oct 6, 2008, at 00:19, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> It is, to coin a phrase that I hope doesn't catch on, the GPL of
> patent
> covenants, great for open source but not necessarily great for
> commercial
> standards.

I think we're looking for the Apache License of patent covenants :-)

Naturally, if the covenant is not to simply pass patents into a limbo
of non-enforceability, there needs to be scoping statement. Your
covenant[1] sets the scope as "open source software", which is what
leads to its commercial hostility. The covenant Sun established for
ODF[2] to supplement the OASIS RF-Limited mode set the scope as the
ODF specification in its evolving form. I'd suggest the non-assert
used by OWF will need to scope based on the evolving specification
rather than on "open source".

S.

[1] http://www.international-characters.com/covenant
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.php#sun_09_2005

[Ben Laurie]

Nope. So, to my non-expert eye, this looks like a good starting point.
What would we have to change to fit our purposes?

>
> /Larry
>
>
> >
>

[Stephan Wenger]

Hi Ben, all,

There are a number of specific points I could make with respect to the
details of the covenant you referred to. However, I don't see this as
productive; first, we need to consider the philosophy behind that document.

I know of a number of companies that are at east mildly critical to open
source activities, but are still willing to work and support open source
communities in certain ecosystems. Now, would those companies contribute,
or allow their employees to contribute, to standardization organizations
which have policies openly hostile to closed source environments? Perhaps;
depends on the business model. However, more importantly, would those
companies be willing to implement those standards into products not being
open source software? Probably not. This covenant being discussed here
seems to favor open source rather dramatically, to a point that closed
source implementations become unlikely. That may be a good choice for the
organization in question. However, do you really want to limit the scope of
any work being done using the OWF legal framework to open source? I do not.

We (that's Nokia) contribute to the ODF discussions under the assumption
that the legal framework created here will be open source friendly, but also
(and that's our main interest, at least at this point in time) friendly to
business models other than open source. An "everything goes" approach,
wherein "everything goes" could be defined as "no financial compensation and
no paperwork for patent use, as long as the patent user behaves well".

If OWF were going into the direction of an all-out
open-source-advocacy-through-patent-policy exercise, we would leave.
Speculating just a bit, so would likely a number of other contributors here.

I strongly believe that one can offer acceptable terms to both open source
and more traditional business models, as long as these terms are not based
on licensing revenues. Non-assert statements with a reasonable reciprocity
clause, limited to the use of patents essential to a well defined standard
text, and no other strings attached, are the vehicle to reach this goal.

Regards,
Stephan

P.s.: as a side not let me mention that even Nokia, occasionally, makes
patents available under non-assert terms for open source use, and RAND terms
elsewhere. However, such a patent covenant is used by us only in very
specific patent families, or very limited charters for charter-based SDOs.

[Chris Messina]

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Stephan Wenger <stephan...@nokia.com> wrote:

> If OWF were going into the direction of an all-out
> open-source-advocacy-through-patent-policy exercise, we would leave.
> Speculating just a bit, so would likely a number of other contributors here.
>
> I strongly believe that one can offer acceptable terms to both open source
> and more traditional business models, as long as these terms are not based
> on licensing revenues. Non-assert statements with a reasonable reciprocity
> clause, limited to the use of patents essential to a well defined standard
> text, and no other strings attached, are the vehicle to reach this goal.

Personally, I don't think that the work of the OWF need be open source
exclusive. I think there should be inherent benefits to working in the
open, and in providing the products of one's work in the open, but I
believe that there are occasions and reasons for not necessarily
licensing everything as open source.

In that case, I believe that the market has a strong effect on the
eventual decision to pursue an open source business strategy or not;
consider that the iPhone NDA was only recently dropped: to speculate,
I can't imagine that Android's position in the market as an open and
open source alternative didn't accelerate Apple's decision.

I think that OWF should develop IPR that should be widely applicable,
regardless of one's open/proprietary development model. Then it's up
to the market to determine which approach will be patronized.

I'm as big an open source advocate as anyone, but I think open source
can be successful in tandem with or alongside proprietary models.

[Ben Laurie]

On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Stephan Wenger <stephan...@nokia.com> wrote:
>

> Hi Ben, all,
>
> There are a number of specific points I could make with respect to the
> details of the covenant you referred to. However, I don't see this as
> productive; first, we need to consider the philosophy behind that document.
>
> I know of a number of companies that are at east mildly critical to open
> source activities, but are still willing to work and support open source
> communities in certain ecosystems. Now, would those companies contribute,
> or allow their employees to contribute, to standardization organizations
> which have policies openly hostile to closed source environments? Perhaps;
> depends on the business model. However, more importantly, would those
> companies be willing to implement those standards into products not being
> open source software? Probably not. This covenant being discussed here
> seems to favor open source rather dramatically, to a point that closed
> source implementations become unlikely. That may be a good choice for the
> organization in question. However, do you really want to limit the scope of
> any work being done using the OWF legal framework to open source? I do not.
>
> We (that's Nokia) contribute to the ODF discussions under the assumption
> that the legal framework created here will be open source friendly, but also
> (and that's our main interest, at least at this point in time) friendly to
> business models other than open source. An "everything goes" approach,
> wherein "everything goes" could be defined as "no financial compensation and
> no paperwork for patent use, as long as the patent user behaves well".

To be clear: my question was intended to be what you want, i.e. "how
do we fix this so it is as you describe?" which I also assume is our
goal. It was the remaining language I thought was a plausible starting
point.

[Gabe Wachob]

RF and RAND are not opposites. RF (and OASIS's RF on limited terms)
are RAND with further restrictions that there can be no royalties
(limited terms mean that the restrictions placed on licensees can only
be from one of a limited set).

This demonizing of OASIS is really silly. It also sounds like from
some of the comments here that there is misunderstanding about how
OASIS and TC's withing OASIS works. OASIS as an org doesn't "choose"
TC topics or the IPR modes. Thats completely up to the 3 or more
participants who come together to form a TC. OASIS allows a wider set
of IPR modes than would be OWF "compatible", but I actually really
like the fact that beyond the minimal requirements, OASIS TC's are
free to run themselves and produce whatever output they want. I would
hope that the OWF is influenced by this (lack of) central control.

-Gabe

[Lawrence Rosen]

Ben Laurie wrote:
> To be clear: my question was intended to be what you want, i.e. "how
> do we fix this so it is as you describe?" which I also assume is our
> goal. It was the remaining language I thought was a plausible starting
> point.

And it was offered for that purpose only. I didn't presume that it would
suffice intact for OWF's model. I said "It would probably not be appropriate
for OWF...."

But it is an example of exactly what Simon described (a "sub-licensable
non-assert policy, probably a blanket one at that"), and so, as he also
said, we need to be precise as to the *scope* of OWF's model non-assert.

Simon suggested that the scope be limited to "the ODF specification in its
evolving form." That's sort of like what Apache has in its CLA policy,
although ASF is somewhat broader: Once a patent claim falls under Apache's
scope through a willing contribution, we essentially get that claim for
everything under Apache's sun.

/Larry

[David Recordon]

Agreed, OASIS is certainly not evil and does great work overall that we as a community must respect even if we don't agree with all of the means.

--David

[David Orchard]

+1.  OASIS is/was a great "next step" when people decided not to do a bunch of work at the W3C or IETF.  The idea of Jon Bosak et al of anybody can do whatever work they want under whatever IPR terms they want is frankly freedom.  If a bunch of people want to get together to work on some super radical RAND terms at OASIS, they darn well ought to be able to do so.   

People have to start being very careful about deciding how much oversight they want on the technical and legal aspects of work done in various stds bodies. Blanket statements like "X is bad" are generally wrong because, frankly, life isn't simple.  People need to make intelligent and informed decisions about all aspects of work they or the people they represent participate in.  As a person who has somewhat of such a mantle of responsibility, it's always been difficult in almost every tough situation.  Will vendor X who is crucial to spec Y come to stds body under IPR terms Z?  If not, do we call them or offer terms Z'?  As Bismark said, politics is like sausage making..

Cheers,
Dave

[Geir Magnusson Jr.]

On Oct 5, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Chris Messina wrote:

>
> On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Stephan Wenger <stephan...@nokia.com
> > wrote:
>
>> If OWF were going into the direction of an all-out
>> open-source-advocacy-through-patent-policy exercise, we would leave.
>> Speculating just a bit, so would likely a number of other
>> contributors here.
>>
>> I strongly believe that one can offer acceptable terms to both open
>> source
>> and more traditional business models, as long as these terms are
>> not based
>> on licensing revenues. Non-assert statements with a reasonable
>> reciprocity
>> clause, limited to the use of patents essential to a well defined
>> standard
>> text, and no other strings attached, are the vehicle to reach this
>> goal.
>
> Personally, I don't think that the work of the OWF need be open source
> exclusive. I think there should be inherent benefits to working in the
> open, and in providing the products of one's work in the open, but I
> believe that there are occasions and reasons for not necessarily
> licensing everything as open source.

I'm not quite sure what Stephan was hinting at, mechanically, but I'll
voice support for the general notion that nothing we do should be
discriminatory against proprietary software. To me, a specification
that was biased in that way wouldn't be open.

geir

[Stephan Wenger]

Hi,

Sub-licensable licenses have most often the property of diminishing the
defensive value of patents, and are therefore IMO not preferable over a
non-assert.

Non-assert promises normally go only from the rightholder to the righttaker;
no detours -> simpler.

We generally prefer specific non-asserts---transparency of the patent
landscape. A backup with a blanket statement is ok. (See one of Nokia's
recent IETF non-assert declarations if you are interested.)

Blanket non-asserts only are ok as long as a) it is clear against what
specification or charter the non-assert promise is made, and b) there is
some form of an opt-out mechanism. That is the W3C model, with "RF
licensing" being replaced by "non-assert". "Opt-out" here means that at a
well defined point in time a company can state "sorry, but here is a patent
(family) against which we cannot promise not to assert patents". This is
needed not so much for greedy business reasons, but more for cases where a
certain patent (which may be essential) has already been subject to previous
or ongoing licensing, cross-licensing, litigation, or other assertions---or
is of such a high strategic value that the rightholder is simply unwilling
to commit it. The community will in this case have to design around, or
take other measures (public pressure has worked reasonably well in W3C).

Any re-chartering, and any change in the document scope (i.e. the creation
of a new, enhanced version) should require a new non-assert promise. Again,
similar to the W3C model. I know that plays havoc with derivative work
concepts some folks are interested in.

Regards,
Stephan

[DeWitt Clinton]

The elephant in the room being that none* of the common non-asserts prevent the rightholder from selling/licensing a pertinent patent to a third party and letting them do as they please.  The typical "from me to you" promise is only good insofar as it doesn't involve a middle-man.  I don't know of a particular case in which this loophole has been abused, but it could be, particularly in the event of a unwanted change-of-control/bankruptcy event/etc.  (Credit for this observation goes to someone else on this list, but I won't name him unless he wants to speak up.)

To pick a perfectly silly example, Microsoft's Open Specification Promise says nothing about this, so if Microsoft goes under tomorrow, the IP portfolio could be liquidated and the new owners could use those assets against implementors of technologies covered under the OSP.  Or Microsoft could sell those patents to Vulcan, which would not be so bound to uphold the promise.  (I pick the Microsoft example because it obviously wouldn't happen, but you get my point...)

* We've added some cumbersome language in the OpenSocial non-assert to avoid this, but I haven't seen that approach used elsewhere.  Which is why I favor a license, not a non-assert.

Probably overstepping my bounds as a non-lawyer, and this is just my personal opinion and observation, not necessarily meant to reflect a position taken by my employer one way or the other, but there it is.

-DeWitt

[Daniel Weitzner]

DeWitt's example may be fanciful but the reality of corporate re-
organization certainly isn't. How many startups with good ideas and
real, implemented open solutions can we think of that have been
acquired by one or another larger software or service vendor? Then
what happens to those non-asserts?

I've seen a lot of people on this list 'assert' that non-asserts are a
good idea but I just don't get it. A license is a more durable
commitment. Why would any OWF effort not want that? Why would the Web
community accept an OWF specification when contributors refused to
issue a license and only offered a non-assert. The non-assert keeps
assets less encumbered for the patent holder but that ought to be red
flag to other users and implementers.

Danny

[Paul Downey]

On 6 Oct 2008, at 20:39, DeWitt Clinton wrote:

> The elephant in the room being that none* of the common non-asserts
> prevent the rightholder from selling/licensing a pertinent patent to
> a third party and letting them do as they please.

Inspired, in part by this thread, I put "RAND", along with "Gratis",
"DRM", "Proprietry" [sic] as one of the "Four Horsemen of The
Vendopolis" in a doodle "The URI Is The Thing".

Readers of this list /may/ enjoy it:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/psd/2918889380/

With apologies for going off-topic, and on-pimping ..

Paul (psd)
--
http://blog.whatfettle.com

[Lawrence Rosen]

* We've added some cumbersome language in the OpenSocial non-assert to avoid this, but I haven't seen that approach used elsewhere. 

 

I quote: "International Characters, Inc., on its own behalf and on behalf of its successors in interest, irrevocably covenants that,..." That language is right at the beginning. http://www.international-characters.com/covenant.

 

It is sensible for a company, including in its non-asserts, to plan for the future and to make future commitments.

 

/Larry

 

 

 

 

---

From: open-web...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of DeWitt Clinton
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 12:40 PM
To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OASIS [no longer] considering RAND working group

 

The elephant in the room being that none* of the common non-asserts prevent the rightholder from selling/licensing a pertinent patent to a third party and letting them do as they please.  The typical "from me to you" promise is only good insofar as it doesn't involve a middle-man.  I don't know of a particular case in which this loophole has been abused, but it could be, particularly in the event of a unwanted change-of-control/bankruptcy event/etc.  (Credit for this observation goes to someone else on this list, but I won't name him unless he wants to speak up.)

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

This really only covers takeovers and acquisitions. If you buy another company, you assume all their legal responsibility. That one is easy. But if a company sells their non-asserted IP to a third party, this license does not provide any protection to implementers from that third party asserting their newly acquired IP. At most, it allows implementers to sue the original company for damages as it might have violated the personal promise to apply this agreement on any future owners.

My view is that non-assert accomplish the one thing IPR policies are trying to prevent, that is, using the standard process as a way to inject IP and generate revenues from control over the standard. We want to make sure that all contributions are free. A patent troll can join a spec working group with a non-assert IPR, push for their IP to be directly included and sign the non-assert agreement. Then it can go and sell that IP after the spec is widely adopted and not only get a lump sum but also dividends from future licenses.

EHL

[Dennis E. Hamilton]

This example from Lawrence Rosen seems pretty effective.

I suppose it does require diligence to ensure that applicable IP is
identified as subject to the covenant in any disposal or transfer of assets,
merger, etc. I can see some prospect for confusion although the
relatively-short duration of patents is a consolation here.

Meanwhile, it will be interesting to observe when a transfer of IP assets
from an entity making a non-assert covenant arises in reality.

I do think those kinds of clauses are a source of reassurance. My
chess-player mind just had to look for an edge case [;<).

- Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: open-web...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:open-web...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Lawrence Rosen
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 15:19
To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: OASIS [no longer] considering RAND working group

* We've added some cumbersome language in the OpenSocial non-assert to avoid
this, but I haven't seen that approach used elsewhere.

I quote: "International Characters, Inc., on its own behalf and on behalf of
its successors in interest, irrevocably covenants that,..." That language is
right at the beginning. http://www.international-characters.com/covenant.

It is sensible for a company, including in its non-asserts, to plan for the
future and to make future commitments.

/Larry

[ ... ]

[David Rudin]

There are fundamental differences between what a group like
International Characters can do and what a large patent holder can
agree to. I'm guessing that International Characters has a fairly
modest number of patents and implements a limited number of
standards. Large patent holders with many standards implementations
are in a different situation. While they may be willing to grant a
non-assert or take on a licensing commitment for patents that read on
a specification, they might not actually know what those patents are
without doing an expensive and time consuming patent search. Most
don't.

This leads to the practical issue of what a company would need to do
to meet the International Characters successor in interest language?
Would they need to do a patent search? (Even organizations with
patent disclosure policies limit the disclosures to personal knowledge
and do not require patent searches.) What if the patent owner
inadvertently misses a patent? Also, even if a contributor agrees to
terms along these lines and follows the letter of the agreement, what
happens if the downstream owner doesn't follow through? Is the
contributor then liable for what the downstream recipient does?

In the end, the question comes down to how much of a burden we think
patent holders would be willing to accept to be part of the process
rather than be an outsider with no commitments at all.

David

On Oct 6, 3:18 pm, "Lawrence Rosen" <lro...@rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> * We've added some cumbersome language in the OpenSocial non-assert to avoid
> this, but I haven't seen that approach used elsewhere.
>
> I quote: "International Characters, Inc., on its own behalf and on behalf of
> its successors in interest, irrevocably covenants that,..." That language is

> right at the beginning.http://www.international-characters.com/covenant.

[Lawrence Rosen]

Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:

This really only covers takeovers and acquisitions....

 

No such thing!

 

It doesn't say successors in interest to the entire company. I will concede it is perhaps vague, but we clearly meant "successors in interest to" the patents.

 

/Larry

 

 

 

 

---

[Brett McDowell]

Good point.

[Ben Lee]

Just to underline DeWitt and Danny's points here: the more likely
scenario, unfortunately, these days is not that MS or some other
company goes under. Rather, the more likely scenario (and one I have
seen time after time in the last few years) is that the company merely
sells the patents to a patent troll, sometimes with full profit
participation.

The non-assert does not transfer to the troll purchaser and is
worthless in a situation like this. The whole industry can be readily
sued by the patent troll, and the original company can reap the
rewards of the lawsuit, even though they committed to a non-assert.

-- Ben

> > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Stephan Wenger <stephan.wen...@nokia.com

[Ben Lee]

Just to underline DeWitt and Danny's points here: the more likely
scenario, unfortunately, these days is not that MS or some other
company goes under. Rather, the more likely scenario (and one I have
seen time after time in the last few years) is that the company merely
sells the patents to a patent troll, sometimes with full profit
participation.

The non-assert does not transfer to the troll purchaser and is
worthless in a situation like this. The whole industry can be readily
sued by the patent troll, and the original company can reap the
rewards of the lawsuit, even though they committed to a non-assert.

-- Ben

On Oct 6, 12:50 pm, Daniel Weitzner <djweitz...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Stephan Wenger <stephan.wen...@nokia.com

[Lawrence Rosen]

Ben Lee wrote:
> The non-assert does not transfer to the troll purchaser and is
> worthless in a situation like this. The whole industry can be readily
> sued by the patent troll, and the original company can reap the
> rewards of the lawsuit, even though they committed to a non-assert.

Once again, I'm confused by this. *WHICH* non-assert are you talking about?

If you are suggesting that *all* non-asserts act this way, nonsense! You
have to read the words to understand what the original patent owner is
agreeing to. A non-assert is a commitment. It is a promise. It is
enforceable in court by anyone who relies on that promise and that
commitment.

Generalities about non-asserts are like generalities about licenses. They
are meaningless out of a specific context of the written document and the
associated IP. For example, we specifically intend that the International
Characters non-assert *not* allow trolls to behave that way with our
patents. If anyone here believes we've built in such a horrendous loophole,
please tell me to fix it and we'll revise the words to do so.

/Larry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: open-web...@googlegroups.com [mailto:open-web-

> dis...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ben Lee
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:34 AM
> To: Open Web Foundation Discussion
> Subject: Re: OASIS [no longer] considering RAND working group
>
>