Thanks Craig (and Mark). I'll add the references.


Inactive hide details for Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM>Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM>

          Craig L Russell <Craig.Russell@Sun.COM>
          Sent by: Craig.Russell@Sun.COM

          09/17/2007 01:53 PM


"Mark A. Carlson" <Mark.Carlson@Sun.COM>

cc, David L Kaminsky/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, W G Stoddard/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS


Re: Incubator Proposal: SPL

Hi Mark,

Thanks for that. I also found other documents on the site [1] to be  
relevant, in particular the cover page of [2].

I have no further issues with the IP aspect of this proposal, and  
suggest that references to [1] and [2] and [3] be included in the  
updated proposal to head off future rat-holes.



On Sep 17, 2007, at 10:30 AM, Mark A. Carlson wrote:

> The DMTF patent policy is here:
> The DMTF does not have any IP in any of its specs and
> unless DMTF is explicitly notified of such, neither do any of
> the members.
> -- mark
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Hi David,
>> Thanks for the clarifications.
>> On Sep 17, 2007, at 5:57 AM, David L Kaminsky wrote:
>>> On the standard itself, not surprisingly, the DMTF encourages
>>> implementations, and at submission, the DMTF requires this text:
>>> "Permission to copy, display, perform, modify and distribute the
>>> specification, and to authorize others to do the foregoing, in  
>>> any medium
>>> without fee or royalty is hereby granted for the purpose of  
>>> developing and
>>> evaluating the Specification.
>> But the intended use here is not "developing and evaluating" the  
>> Specification, but implementing it. Is there a grant of license  
>> for implementations?
>>> The Specification may be published as one or
>>> more separate documents including for example as ASCII formats,  
>>> schema or
>>> metadata files rather than solely as a single document.
>>> "Co-Developers agree to grant a license to third parties, under
>>> royalty-free and otherwise reasonable, non-discriminatory terms and
>>> conditions, to their respective Essential Patent Rights (as that  
>>> term is
>>> defined in the DMTF Patent and Technology Policy) that are  
>>> necessary to
>>> implement the Specification in accordance with the DMTF Patent and
>>> Technology Policy."
>> This required grant of patent rights is a good indicator that  
>> implementing the Specification doesn't get Apache into potential  
>> trouble, but I'd still like to see an explicit statement regarding  
>> the rights of independent implementations to use the IP contained  
>> in the Specification itself.
>> Regards,
>> Craig
>> Craig Russell

Craig Russell