On the whole issue of patents, a conference was held at the
Fairmont Scottsdale Princess resort in Arizona during
September 13 - 14 called:
"Open Source, Open Standards: Maximising Utility While
Managing Exposure"
The conference was organized by the Open Standards Alliance.
http://www.openstandardsalliance.org/
At the conference, Larry Rosen gave a keynote speech on the
issue of the compatibility of Open Standards with Open
Source software licensing.
I quote from the official conference statement:
Larry Rosen proposed five normative principles for open
standards that are compatible with Open Source software
licensing.
The five principles of open source software are:
1. Licensees are free to use open source software for any
purpose whatsoever.
2. Licensees are free to make copies of open source
software and to distribute them without payment of
royalties to a licensor.
3. Licensees are free to create derivative works of open
source software, and to distribute them without payment of
royalties to a licensor.
4. Licensees are free to access and use the source code of
open source software.
5. Licensees are free to combine open source and other
software.
Compatible principles
Mr Rosen put forward compatible principles for Open
Standards:
1. Everyone is free to copy and distribute the official
specification for an open standard under an open source
license.
2. Everyone is free to make or use embodiments of an open
standard under unconditional licenses to patent claims
necessary to practice that standard.
3. Everyone is free to distribute externally, sell, offer
for sale, have made, or import embodiments of an open
standard under patent licenses that may be conditioned only
on reciprocal licenses to any of the licensee's patent
claims necessary to practice that standard.
4. A patent license for an open standard may be terminated
as to any licensee who sues the licensor or any other
licensee for infringement of patent claims necessary to
practice that standard.
5. All patent licenses necessary to practice an open
standard are worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual, and sub-licensable.
Mr Rosen hopes these principles will serve as a starting
point for discussions on how the two communities can work
together to realize the benefits of open standards while
preserving the unique value and culture of the open source
community."
You can read a copy of the official communication
authorized by John Terpstra of the Open Standards Alliance
here:
http://www.industria.co.nz/home.htm
(Scroll to the middle of the page and look for the heading
- Open Source, Open Standards conference communiqué.)
The communication goes on to read:
"Position of consumers
The meeting coalesced around Rosen?s observation that
traditional IP protective measures, including licensing,
are based on an underlying notion that a consumer or user
is always a licensee.
The Open Source paradigm challenges that traditional
perception with the principle that every licensee is a
potential licensor.
Therefore, a successful standardisation process for Open
Source software must accommodate this fact. Potential
sub-licensing is the principle that lies at the heart of
the value proposition that open source software provides to
the end user.
The conference reached the consensus that:
a. The problems of software use in general, and of open
source software in particular, were adequately defined.
b. The issues touched by each of the problems were
sufficiently realised.
c. The issues, and their long-term implications, must be
further documented.
d. A tractable solution has been proposed: open standards
are the natural concomitant of Open Source software, and a
necessary preservative of the ability of organisations to
use Open Source and proprietary software."
Since email is like the open commons, any standard for
sender authorization must be open.
I appreciate people are calling for a software patent moratorium.
But the points made by Larry Rosen are reasonable and certainly
could serve as a basis for moving the issue forward.
Also, the list made can serve as a guide as to what any
patent license must look like for use with an open standard.
People may want to consider this in their "pitch."
John
P.S. One of the items on the long laundry list of questions
put out by the FTC/NIST is whether the standard for sender
authentication should be "open."
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/09/emailauth.htm
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 17/09/2004