[occi-wg] OCCI Editor Getting Started Guide (docs/README.txt)
samj at samj.net
Tue Mar 23 19:20:10 CDT 2010
This has been on my todo list for a week so I figure some random thoughts at
1am are better than nothing...
As you saw, I didn't make it to OGF 28. I went to visit a Google datacenter
in another country and imported some cold/flu mongrel hybrid that's kept me
coughing for 3 weeks. That's [part of] the reason why I've missed calls and
haven't been pushing the spec to completion. That will change very soon.
I firmly believe that it's time for us to raise the bar for standards
openness, and part of that is using a license that people are comfortable
with such that they won't feel the need to engage a lawyer before [re]using
our documents. As evidenced by the W3C notice I posted a few hours ago, I'm
not alone on this. Most existing cloud computing specifications are
available under CC licenses and I don't want to give anyone any excuses to
choose another standard over ours. It's too bad Creative Commons don't have
a sensible license for standards that covers patents, but perhaps that's
something they would consider if we ask nicely - I think I'll do just that.
Cutting to the chase, as a primary contributor to the specification
documents I "*grant to the OGF and its participants certain licenses and
rights*" (per OGF Intellectual Property
but I *do not assign* the copyrights to OGF. As such I can do pretty much
what I want with my contributions, including granting non-exclusive licenses
to other organisations and publicly releasing them under a license of my
choice or into the public domain (no license required).
I would obviously prefer for the OGF to release the official documents of
their own volition (even as an exception for OCCI), but don't think I won't
do what is required in order to ensure adequate levels of freedom for our
users and implementors (including rewriting contributions from others who
reject more liberal licensing). Nor do I see how this would in any way
prevent the OGF from reaching the three goals you described below.
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net> wrote:
> Hi Sam, all,
> ready to discuss licensing again? :-)
> here is an update from OGF28: first, we heard rumours that you may
> show up here - this would be great, not in the least so that we can
> discuss the licensing thingie F2F. Usually that is way more
> productive than endless mailing threads like this one, isn't it :)
> Anyway, I just wanted to tell you that we have been discussing the
> issues from the recent email exchanges (and I hope sincerely that
> these are the issues you are in fact concerned about) within the
> So, there was some discussion to review the current IPR text, and to
> clarify those passages which seem, in your reading, to hide the
> fact/intent that using any amount of text from a GFD for
> documentation and any other purpose is legally perfectly fine:
> "...derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or
> assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published
> and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any
> We will be cross-checking with similar texts of other standards
> bodies, in particular including IETF, which seem to recently have
> updated their IPR texts as well, to remove some ambiguities. The
> OGF IPR was originally modeled after IETF's, and, IIRC, was
> basically reproducing the OGF IPR word by word.
> Further we have been discussing the point you raised that the state
> of OGF documents would be frozen in the case of OGF's disappearance.
> If this turns out to be a concern for the community, we will
> consider adding a clause which would release the documents into the
> public domain in the case of OGF's demise - we certainly don't want
> to hold anybody back in continuing to work with OGF documents in
> that case.
> Both of the above changes however need to be evaluated, and need to
> be approved by the OGF board. While we don't think this is a
> problem per se, this will need time to be changed.
> The OGF IPR is designed as it is to fulfil three goals: (a) support
> the production and consumption of standards, (b) ensure that OGF
> documents (i.e. documents released under OGF copyright) went
> through the OGF document process, and (c) secure OGF against legal
> litigations. The board will need to make sure that in particular
> (b) and (c) are not affected by the proposed changes. If this
> sounds overly bureaucratic to you: well, that is the way we work ;-)
> Please let us know if changes along those lines would make you sleep
> better :-D
> FWIW: for the same reasons as above (a-c), we do actually require
> that OGF documents are under full OGF copyright, and it does not
> seem likely that a proposal for dual licensing would find much
> support, if any.
> Looking forward to see you in Munich!
> Best, Andre.
> Nothing is ever easy.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the occi-wg