[KI-LC] [BoT] A new Non-Assert Covenant to consider adopting

Colin Wallis Colin.Wallis at dia.govt.nz
Thu Nov 19 16:47:26 EST 2009

..and Bill's comment is the nub of Bill's position as I understand it - keep it simple to the existing 3, because if you add OWF you will potentially open the floodgates of options-on-options.

Sure, OWF the non-assert covenant IPR license may have weaknesses that Bill sees now (thanks Bill - will be very useful for the later guidance material!) and perhaps other folks over in OWF will sooner or later as they implement it.

And no doubt OWF will modify it, if the members grumble and/or don't take it up.

Meanwhile, we will be ahead of other SDO's because at least we have a choice!

Moving from Legal to Strategic for a moment, if we were to offer OWF's license do we feel some of their members would do stuff in KI? We have offered many olive branches in the past and been disappointed!  Would this be a game-changer? Or potentially give us more headaches for little gain?

Even from our own membership base, is there going to be enough motivation for OWF-type licenses over the next 12 months?  Is it worth asking them?

Several thoughts in the above I know...sorry


From: lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org [mailto:lc-bounces at kantarainitiative.org] On Behalf Of Bill Smith
Sent: Friday, 20 November 2009 4:36 a.m.
To: Kantara BoT
Cc: Kantara Leadership Council
Subject: Re: [KI-LC] [BoT] A new Non-Assert Covenant to consider adopting

-1 (if this is the only non-assert covenant the Board will consider)

On Nov 19, 2009, at 7:00 AM, Nat Sakimura wrote:

+1, for various reasons.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 6:47 AM, Brett McDowell <email at brettmcdowell.com<mailto:email at brettmcdowell.com>> wrote:
Many of you know that the Open Web Foundation has been working on a non-assert covenant IPR license for some time.  What you might not know is that I had spent some time working on it with them in the Spring.  As of today it is considered approved.  They have decided to label it version "0.9" to indicate it might change over time and they are open to enhancing it, but do not mistake that for "draft" or "tentative".  This license is final and there is no work underway to develop it any further at this time.

What interesting about this license is that Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! have clearly been the driving force behind it's development and each has committed to license specifications under this license.

News & list of specs under OWFa:

The agreement itself:

Talking points from OWF regarding the agreement:

I encourage the Board of Trustees to consider adding this to our IPR Policy as the first (and perhaps only) non-assert covenant in our menu of options.

If you have questions about this license, I may be able to answer them on this week's call under "AOB" (assuming we get through the full agenda in time).

If there are concerns with the license please let me know as I now (once again) serve on the Open Web Foundation Legal Affairs Committee.

Brett McDowell  |  http://info.brettmcdowell.com<http://info.brettmcdowell.com/>  |  http://KantaraInitiative.org<http://KantaraInitiative.org/>

Trustees mailing list
Trustees at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:Trustees at kantarainitiative.org>

Nat Sakimura (=nat)
Trustees mailing list
Trustees at kantarainitiative.org<mailto:Trustees at kantarainitiative.org>

CAUTION:  This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://kantarainitiative.org/pipermail/lc/attachments/20091120/d85d02a6/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the LC mailing list