From jhierro at tid.es Mon May 13 08:28:56 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 08:28:56 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Fwd: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis In-Reply-To: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06DA87B1@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> References: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06DA87B1@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> Message-ID: <51908828.3070908@tid.es> Hi, Please find below the response by our PO, Arian Zwegers, to my email describing the issue on IPR management of background associated to FI-WARE GEis. Essentially, our PO: 1. asks us to clearly state what is our position regarding IPRs to background associated to the FI-WARE GEis 2. would go for a solution consisting in a formal letter by Jes?s Villasante o Peter Fatelning (Head and Deputy Head of Unit, respectively) stating that the fact that contents of B.2.3.4 are refining contents of clause 41 is considered valid from a legal perspective by the EC I understand that, regarding point 1, we can clearly state that: The commitment by FI-WARE partners is to grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to the FI-WARE GEis for the execution of FI-PPP projects (including FI-WARE), in line with what is stated in the Collaboration Agreement. Note that this not only applies to partners of FI-PPP projects but also third party users of the FI-WARE OIL (since offering FI-WARE GEis royalty-free to them is essential for the execution of FI-WARE and the FI-PPP program). Unless we receive any objection by end of this week, in which case we would have to confirm the position of each partner to send a detailed report on each partner's position to the EC, I will provide this statement in a response to the mail of our PO. Regarding point 2, the solution proposed by our PO it's ok for Telef?nica, but we need to know if anyone objects. Please also express any objection by the end of this week. Please ask your legal representatives about the questions above, if you need to. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 04:34:04 +0000 From: To: , CC: , , Dear Juanjo, Your explanation of the collaboration agreement is surprising. As you know, we don't know the contents. The SAP explanation is a surprise, since it always came across that - SAP did not want to be obliged to provide background to complementary beneficiaries, only to beneficiaries. I always thought that that was in the collaboration agreement, if anything at all. - (since providing background needs to be done and royalty-free) removing the paragraph still keeps the perceived conflict between clause 41 (as you mentioned on Friday, SAP perceives that the clause does not allow any background to be provided to complementary beneficiaries) and the collaboration agreement. That argument is not mentioned anymore??? The second point is also still valid in the Telefonica solution. Perhaps we should start from the beginning. What is it that the FI-WARE consortium want to say about background to complementary beneficiaries? Note that we are not interested in Telefonica's or SAP's position, only the consortium's. Depending on the answer to the question above, I would favour the last option. Peter or Jesus could write an email. "Valid from a legal perspective" can only be tested in a court of law anyway; until then, all is opinion. Best regards, Arian ________________________________________ From: Juanjo Hierro [jhierro at tid.es] Sent: 07 May 2013 19:24 To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; Javier de Pedro Sanchez; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Subject: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Dear Arian and Ragnar, Following our conversation last friday, I would like to explain the IPR management issue we have potentially identified in the current Grant Agreement which we would like to get solved in amendment 5. In this mail, I will elaborate on: 1. The issue itself 2. The alternative solutions proposed by some of the partners in FI-WARE 3. Some thoughts about next steps trying to find how to solve the issue 1. The issue itself The issue is derived from a contradiction that has been detected by SAP on different places of the Grant Agreement (the contract). On one hand, the B.3.2.4 section on IPR included in the FI-WARE DoW (formally referred as Annex I of the Grant Agreement) states the following: [cid:part1.08040204.00010208 at tid.es] This paragraph was based on what we already stated in our proposal and was also requested by the EC. It was also aligned with clauses related to access rights to FI-WARE GE specifications and implementations in the FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement. However, special clause 41 in article 7 of the Grant Agreement states the following which apparently contradicts what was said in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW: [cid:part2.04080501.01050601 at tid.es] Besides this, there is article of the Grant Agreement that elaborates on what interpretation should prevail in case of conflicts between different parts of the Grant Agreement: [cid:part3.07080809.01050802 at tid.es] That would mean that what was stated in special clause 41 in article 7 would take precedence over what was stated in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW. It seems like it would be worth fixing this contradictions in an amendment of the DoW. 2. The alternative solutions proposed by SAP and Telefonica 2.1 Solution proposed by SAP The solution proposed by SAP is simple: drop the conflicting paragraph on section B.3.2.4. Consequently, just relying on what the Grant Agreement states, users of FI-WARE in the context of the FI-PPP could be charged for the background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation. However, since the Collaboration Agreement states that access to background associated to FI-WARE GE implementations has to be granted royalty-free, this 'ability' to charge for background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation would not be executable in practice unless breaking the Collaboration Agreement. Implementing the proposal, the Grant Agreement would become consistent, and the goal to keep access to both background and foreground granted royalty-free would be kept preserved through the Collaboration Agreement. 2.2. Solution proposed by Telefonica Telefonica's proposal was also simple: * Fix special clause 41 so that it reads as follows (changes marked in red): Complementary beneficiaries enjoy the rights and bear the obligations of beneficiaries with regard to Articles II.32, II.33 and II.34 of Annex II {Access Rights}. However, for complementary beneficiaries, these rights and obligations are limited to foreground and background associated only to FI-WARE GE implementations developed in FI-WARE the project. Therefore, they do not extend to background that is not part of FI-WARE GE implementations or required for them to run. Complementary beneficiaries are not members of the consortium for the purpose of this grant agreement * Clarify paragraph in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW for the avoidance of doubt: Access Rights to Foreground and Background associated to FI-WARE GE implementations needed for the execution of the FI-PPP projects and users who carry out experiments in the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab as long as the FI-WARE project lasts, shall be deemed granted on a Royalty-Free basis. Other than in exceptional circumstances and only for Background specifically identified, no costs shall be charged for granting such Access Rights. The FI-WARE beneficiaries will not charge any such costs to the project. The whole idea would be to fix the Grant Agreement as to reflect what was the spirit of the program since the beginning, without the need to rely on the Collaboration Agreement. Note that the EC is party in the Grant Agreement but not the Collaboration Agreement, therefore this proposal allows the EC to act against any partner that doesn't grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation for the execution of projects in the FI-PPP. With SAP's proposal, it is up to partners signing the Collaboration Agreement to decide whether to sue or not any partner who decides to charge for background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation. Furthermore, the proposal intends to fix any uncertainties regarding usage of background of FI-WARE GE implementations by third parties users of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab (could be a party running an experiment on the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab be considered as a partner of the FI-PPP ? We believe it is not so clear, so better that we make it clear that access to background and foreground associated to FI-WARE GE implementations will be granted royalty-free to third parties users of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab 3. Some thoughts about next steps trying to find how to solve the issue It would be important that this issue be solved in amendment 5. Obviously, one potential alternative would be to go for one of the two proposals described in the previous point. At the current moment, the solution proposed by Telefonica was endorsed by more partners within FI-WARE (up to 14 partners). The proposal made by SAP was supported by two partners (one being SAP). The rest of partners seem to abstain. Another possibility would be that the EC makes a formal statement that the special clause 41 doesn't get into contradiction with the mentioned paragraph in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW so the DoW in practice is refining what the clause 41 was stating in a first approach. Note that such statement to be provided by the EC should be formal and valid from a legal perspective. Looking forward your response. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.png Type: image/png Size: 26719 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00002.png Type: image/png Size: 49073 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATT00003.png Type: image/png Size: 55743 bytes Desc: not available URL: From GLIKSON at il.ibm.com Mon May 13 09:35:01 2013 From: GLIKSON at il.ibm.com (Alex Glikson) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:35:01 +0300 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis In-Reply-To: <51908828.3070908@tid.es> References: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06DA87B1@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <51908828.3070908@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Juanjo, Regarding point #1.. IMO, if we want to make progress faster, it might be a good idea to distinguish between Use Cases and OIL. IPR for Use Cases has been discussed many times, including Collaboration Agreement, and it sounds feasible to reach a decision there (maybe with some facilitation from EC). However, the discussion on terms and conditions for OIL only started, and it might be premature at the moment to assume a very specific approach to IPR. Clearly, it should have some sort of alignment with the spirit of the terms and conditions for Use Cases -- but there are many details which yet need to be nailed down and agreed. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | http://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/stt/cloud_sys.shtml Email: glikson at il.ibm.com | Phone: +972-4-8281085 | Mobile: +972-54-6466667 | Fax: +972-4-8296112 From: Juanjo Hierro To: "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Cc: "Theilmann, Wolfgang" , "fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu" Date: 13/05/2013 09:27 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu Hi, Please find below the response by our PO, Arian Zwegers, to my email describing the issue on IPR management of background associated to FI-WARE GEis. Essentially, our PO: 1. asks us to clearly state what is our position regarding IPRs to background associated to the FI-WARE GEis 2. would go for a solution consisting in a formal letter by Jes?s Villasante o Peter Fatelning (Head and Deputy Head of Unit, respectively) stating that the fact that contents of B.2.3.4 are refining contents of clause 41 is considered valid from a legal perspective by the EC I understand that, regarding point 1, we can clearly state that: The commitment by FI-WARE partners is to grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to the FI-WARE GEis for the execution of FI-PPP projects (including FI-WARE), in line with what is stated in the Collaboration Agreement. Note that this not only applies to partners of FI-PPP projects but also third party users of the FI-WARE OIL (since offering FI-WARE GEis royalty-free to them is essential for the execution of FI-WARE and the FI-PPP program). Unless we receive any objection by end of this week, in which case we would have to confirm the position of each partner to send a detailed report on each partner's position to the EC, I will provide this statement in a response to the mail of our PO. Regarding point 2, the solution proposed by our PO it's ok for Telef?nica, but we need to know if anyone objects. Please also express any objection by the end of this week. Please ask your legal representatives about the questions above, if you need to. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 04:34:04 +0000 From: To: , CC: , , Dear Juanjo, Your explanation of the collaboration agreement is surprising. As you know, we don't know the contents. The SAP explanation is a surprise, since it always came across that - SAP did not want to be obliged to provide background to complementary beneficiaries, only to beneficiaries. I always thought that that was in the collaboration agreement, if anything at all. - (since providing background needs to be done and royalty-free) removing the paragraph still keeps the perceived conflict between clause 41 (as you mentioned on Friday, SAP perceives that the clause does not allow any background to be provided to complementary beneficiaries) and the collaboration agreement. That argument is not mentioned anymore??? The second point is also still valid in the Telefonica solution. Perhaps we should start from the beginning. What is it that the FI-WARE consortium want to say about background to complementary beneficiaries? Note that we are not interested in Telefonica's or SAP's position, only the consortium's. Depending on the answer to the question above, I would favour the last option. Peter or Jesus could write an email. "Valid from a legal perspective" can only be tested in a court of law anyway; until then, all is opinion. Best regards, Arian ________________________________________ From: Juanjo Hierro [jhierro at tid.es] Sent: 07 May 2013 19:24 To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; Javier de Pedro Sanchez; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Subject: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Dear Arian and Ragnar, Following our conversation last friday, I would like to explain the IPR management issue we have potentially identified in the current Grant Agreement which we would like to get solved in amendment 5. In this mail, I will elaborate on: 1. The issue itself 2. The alternative solutions proposed by some of the partners in FI-WARE 3. Some thoughts about next steps trying to find how to solve the issue 1. The issue itself The issue is derived from a contradiction that has been detected by SAP on different places of the Grant Agreement (the contract). On one hand, the B.3.2.4 section on IPR included in the FI-WARE DoW (formally referred as Annex I of the Grant Agreement) states the following: [cid:part1.08040204.00010208 at tid.es] This paragraph was based on what we already stated in our proposal and was also requested by the EC. It was also aligned with clauses related to access rights to FI-WARE GE specifications and implementations in the FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement. However, special clause 41 in article 7 of the Grant Agreement states the following which apparently contradicts what was said in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW: [cid:part2.04080501.01050601 at tid.es] Besides this, there is article of the Grant Agreement that elaborates on what interpretation should prevail in case of conflicts between different parts of the Grant Agreement: [cid:part3.07080809.01050802 at tid.es] That would mean that what was stated in special clause 41 in article 7 would take precedence over what was stated in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW. It seems like it would be worth fixing this contradictions in an amendment of the DoW. 2. The alternative solutions proposed by SAP and Telefonica 2.1 Solution proposed by SAP The solution proposed by SAP is simple: drop the conflicting paragraph on section B.3.2.4. Consequently, just relying on what the Grant Agreement states, users of FI-WARE in the context of the FI-PPP could be charged for the background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation. However, since the Collaboration Agreement states that access to background associated to FI-WARE GE implementations has to be granted royalty-free, this 'ability' to charge for background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation would not be executable in practice unless breaking the Collaboration Agreement. Implementing the proposal, the Grant Agreement would become consistent, and the goal to keep access to both background and foreground granted royalty-free would be kept preserved through the Collaboration Agreement. 2.2. Solution proposed by Telefonica Telefonica's proposal was also simple: * Fix special clause 41 so that it reads as follows (changes marked in red): Complementary beneficiaries enjoy the rights and bear the obligations of beneficiaries with regard to Articles II.32, II.33 and II.34 of Annex II {Access Rights}. However, for complementary beneficiaries, these rights and obligations are limited to foreground and background associated only to FI-WARE GE implementations developed in FI-WARE the project. Therefore, they do not extend to background that is not part of FI-WARE GE implementations or required for them to run. Complementary beneficiaries are not members of the consortium for the purpose of this grant agreement * Clarify paragraph in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW for the avoidance of doubt: Access Rights to Foreground and Background associated to FI-WARE GE implementations needed for the execution of the FI-PPP projects and users who carry out experiments in the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab as long as the FI-WARE project lasts, shall be deemed granted on a Royalty-Free basis. Other than in exceptional circumstances and only for Background specifically identified, no costs shall be charged for granting such Access Rights. The FI-WARE beneficiaries will not charge any such costs to the project. The whole idea would be to fix the Grant Agreement as to reflect what was the spirit of the program since the beginning, without the need to rely on the Collaboration Agreement. Note that the EC is party in the Grant Agreement but not the Collaboration Agreement, therefore this proposal allows the EC to act against any partner that doesn't grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation for the execution of projects in the FI-PPP. With SAP's proposal, it is up to partners signing the Collaboration Agreement to decide whether to sue or not any partner who decides to charge for background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation. Furthermore, the proposal intends to fix any uncertainties regarding usage of background of FI-WARE GE implementations by third parties users of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab (could be a party running an experiment on the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab be considered as a partner of the FI-PPP ? We believe it is not so clear, so better that we make it clear that access to background and foreground associated to FI-WARE GE implementations will be granted royalty-free to third parties users of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab 3. Some thoughts about next steps trying to find how to solve the issue It would be important that this issue be solved in amendment 5. Obviously, one potential alternative would be to go for one of the two proposals described in the previous point. At the current moment, the solution proposed by Telefonica was endorsed by more partners within FI-WARE (up to 14 partners). The proposal made by SAP was supported by two partners (one being SAP). The rest of partners seem to abstain. Another possibility would be that the EC makes a formal statement that the special clause 41 doesn't get into contradiction with the mentioned paragraph in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW so the DoW in practice is refining what the clause 41 was stating in a first approach. Note that such statement to be provided by the EC should be formal and valid from a legal perspective. Looking forward your response. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx[attachment "ATT00001.png" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "ATT00002.png" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "ATT00003.png" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Mon May 13 10:01:24 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:01:24 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis In-Reply-To: References: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06DA87B1@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <51908828.3070908@tid.es> Message-ID: <51909DD4.6020202@tid.es> Dear Alex, Regarding access to users of the FI-WARE OIL, I believe that there was agreement, because it has been discussed multiple times, that access rights will be granted royalty-free as well, subject to FI-WARE OIL Terms and Conditions. I agree that we have to add the "subject to FI-WARE OIL Terms and Conditions" would need to be added, but nothing more. Therefore, my proposed revised statement would be: The commitment by FI-WARE partners is to grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to the FI-WARE GEis for the execution of FI-PPP projects (including FI-WARE), in line with what is stated in the Collaboration Agreement. Note that this not only applies to partners of FI-PPP projects but also third party users of the FI-WARE OIL (since offering FI-WARE GEis royalty-free to them is essential for the execution of FI-WARE and the FI-PPP program). Users of the FI-WARE OIL refer to third parties that will adhere to the FI-WARE OIL terms and conditions. It's ok then to you and rest of partners ? BTW, it's our intend to provide a first draft of the FI-WARE OIL Terms and Conditions this week as to start the discussion and get it finalized on time. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 On 13/05/13 09:35, Alex Glikson wrote: Dear Juanjo, Regarding point #1.. IMO, if we want to make progress faster, it might be a good idea to distinguish between Use Cases and OIL. IPR for Use Cases has been discussed many times, including Collaboration Agreement, and it sounds feasible to reach a decision there (maybe with some facilitation from EC). However, the discussion on terms and conditions for OIL only started, and it might be premature at the moment to assume a very specific approach to IPR. Clearly, it should have some sort of alignment with the spirit of the terms and conditions for Use Cases -- but there are many details which yet need to be nailed down and agreed. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | http://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/stt/cloud_sys.shtml Email: glikson at il.ibm.com | Phone: +972-4-8281085 | Mobile: +972-54-6466667 | Fax: +972-4-8296112 From: Juanjo Hierro To: "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Cc: "Theilmann, Wolfgang" , "fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu" Date: 13/05/2013 09:27 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Hi, Please find below the response by our PO, Arian Zwegers, to my email describing the issue on IPR management of background associated to FI-WARE GEis. Essentially, our PO: 1. asks us to clearly state what is our position regarding IPRs to background associated to the FI-WARE GEis 2. would go for a solution consisting in a formal letter by Jes?s Villasante o Peter Fatelning (Head and Deputy Head of Unit, respectively) stating that the fact that contents of B.2.3.4 are refining contents of clause 41 is considered valid from a legal perspective by the EC I understand that, regarding point 1, we can clearly state that: The commitment by FI-WARE partners is to grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to the FI-WARE GEis for the execution of FI-PPP projects (including FI-WARE), in line with what is stated in the Collaboration Agreement. Note that this not only applies to partners of FI-PPP projects but also third party users of the FI-WARE OIL (since offering FI-WARE GEis royalty-free to them is essential for the execution of FI-WARE and the FI-PPP program). Unless we receive any objection by end of this week, in which case we would have to confirm the position of each partner to send a detailed report on each partner's position to the EC, I will provide this statement in a response to the mail of our PO. Regarding point 2, the solution proposed by our PO it's ok for Telef?nica, but we need to know if anyone objects. Please also express any objection by the end of this week. Please ask your legal representatives about the questions above, if you need to. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 04:34:04 +0000 From: To: , CC: , , Dear Juanjo, Your explanation of the collaboration agreement is surprising. As you know, we don't know the contents. The SAP explanation is a surprise, since it always came across that - SAP did not want to be obliged to provide background to complementary beneficiaries, only to beneficiaries. I always thought that that was in the collaboration agreement, if anything at all. - (since providing background needs to be done and royalty-free) removing the paragraph still keeps the perceived conflict between clause 41 (as you mentioned on Friday, SAP perceives that the clause does not allow any background to be provided to complementary beneficiaries) and the collaboration agreement. That argument is not mentioned anymore??? The second point is also still valid in the Telefonica solution. Perhaps we should start from the beginning. What is it that the FI-WARE consortium want to say about background to complementary beneficiaries? Note that we are not interested in Telefonica's or SAP's position, only the consortium's. Depending on the answer to the question above, I would favour the last option. Peter or Jesus could write an email. "Valid from a legal perspective" can only be tested in a court of law anyway; until then, all is opinion. Best regards, Arian ________________________________________ From: Juanjo Hierro [jhierro at tid.es] Sent: 07 May 2013 19:24 To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; Javier de Pedro Sanchez; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Subject: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Dear Arian and Ragnar, Following our conversation last friday, I would like to explain the IPR management issue we have potentially identified in the current Grant Agreement which we would like to get solved in amendment 5. In this mail, I will elaborate on: 1. The issue itself 2. The alternative solutions proposed by some of the partners in FI-WARE 3. Some thoughts about next steps trying to find how to solve the issue 1. The issue itself The issue is derived from a contradiction that has been detected by SAP on different places of the Grant Agreement (the contract). On one hand, the B.3.2.4 section on IPR included in the FI-WARE DoW (formally referred as Annex I of the Grant Agreement) states the following: [cid:part1.08040204.00010208 at tid.es] This paragraph was based on what we already stated in our proposal and was also requested by the EC. It was also aligned with clauses related to access rights to FI-WARE GE specifications and implementations in the FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement. However, special clause 41 in article 7 of the Grant Agreement states the following which apparently contradicts what was said in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW: [cid:part2.04080501.01050601 at tid.es] Besides this, there is article of the Grant Agreement that elaborates on what interpretation should prevail in case of conflicts between different parts of the Grant Agreement: [cid:part3.07080809.01050802 at tid.es] That would mean that what was stated in special clause 41 in article 7 would take precedence over what was stated in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW. It seems like it would be worth fixing this contradictions in an amendment of the DoW. 2. The alternative solutions proposed by SAP and Telefonica 2.1 Solution proposed by SAP The solution proposed by SAP is simple: drop the conflicting paragraph on section B.3.2.4. Consequently, just relying on what the Grant Agreement states, users of FI-WARE in the context of the FI-PPP could be charged for the background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation. However, since the Collaboration Agreement states that access to background associated to FI-WARE GE implementations has to be granted royalty-free, this 'ability' to charge for background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation would not be executable in practice unless breaking the Collaboration Agreement. Implementing the proposal, the Grant Agreement would become consistent, and the goal to keep access to both background and foreground granted royalty-free would be kept preserved through the Collaboration Agreement. 2.2. Solution proposed by Telefonica Telefonica's proposal was also simple: * Fix special clause 41 so that it reads as follows (changes marked in red): Complementary beneficiaries enjoy the rights and bear the obligations of beneficiaries with regard to Articles II.32, II.33 and II.34 of Annex II {Access Rights}. However, for complementary beneficiaries, these rights and obligations are limited to foreground and background associated only to FI-WARE GE implementations developed in FI-WARE the project. Therefore, they do not extend to background that is not part of FI-WARE GE implementations or required for them to run. Complementary beneficiaries are not members of the consortium for the purpose of this grant agreement * Clarify paragraph in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW for the avoidance of doubt: Access Rights to Foreground and Background associated to FI-WARE GE implementations needed for the execution of the FI-PPP projects and users who carry out experiments in the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab as long as the FI-WARE project lasts, shall be deemed granted on a Royalty-Free basis. Other than in exceptional circumstances and only for Background specifically identified, no costs shall be charged for granting such Access Rights. The FI-WARE beneficiaries will not charge any such costs to the project. The whole idea would be to fix the Grant Agreement as to reflect what was the spirit of the program since the beginning, without the need to rely on the Collaboration Agreement. Note that the EC is party in the Grant Agreement but not the Collaboration Agreement, therefore this proposal allows the EC to act against any partner that doesn't grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation for the execution of projects in the FI-PPP. With SAP's proposal, it is up to partners signing the Collaboration Agreement to decide whether to sue or not any partner who decides to charge for background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation. Furthermore, the proposal intends to fix any uncertainties regarding usage of background of FI-WARE GE implementations by third parties users of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab (could be a party running an experiment on the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab be considered as a partner of the FI-PPP ? We believe it is not so clear, so better that we make it clear that access to background and foreground associated to FI-WARE GE implementations will be granted royalty-free to third parties users of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab 3. Some thoughts about next steps trying to find how to solve the issue It would be important that this issue be solved in amendment 5. Obviously, one potential alternative would be to go for one of the two proposals described in the previous point. At the current moment, the solution proposed by Telefonica was endorsed by more partners within FI-WARE (up to 14 partners). The proposal made by SAP was supported by two partners (one being SAP). The rest of partners seem to abstain. Another possibility would be that the EC makes a formal statement that the special clause 41 doesn't get into contradiction with the mentioned paragraph in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW so the DoW in practice is refining what the clause 41 was stating in a first approach. Note that such statement to be provided by the EC should be formal and valid from a legal perspective. Looking forward your response. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx[attachment "ATT00001.png" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "ATT00002.png" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "ATT00003.png" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com Wed May 15 08:46:06 2013 From: jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com (Heitto, Jonas (Jonas)) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 06:46:06 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-wpl] [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis In-Reply-To: <51909DD4.6020202@tid.es> References: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06DA87B1@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <51908828.3070908@tid.es> <51909DD4.6020202@tid.es> Message-ID: <127C84805B8CDC4EBA7B1FEB557EC66A02EEFB@FR711WXCHMBA02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> Dear Juanjo, when addressing the PO's question relating to Background licensing to complementary beneficiaries, you suggest this response: The commitment by FI-WARE partners is to grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to the FI-WARE GEis for the execution of FI-PPP projects (including FI-WARE), in line with what is stated in the Collaboration Agreement. Note that this not only applies to partners of FI-PPP projects but also third party users of the FI-WARE OIL (since offering FI-WARE GEis royalty-free to them is essential for the execution of FI-WARE and the FI-PPP program). Users of the FI-WARE OIL refer to third parties that will adhere to the FI-WARE OIL terms and conditions. As the first sentence refers to the FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement, it might not be accurate to state in this 2nd sentence that "this" also applies to 3rd party users of the OIL. The OIL terms and conditions have to my knowledge not been determined yet, and I doubt they will duplicate those contained in the FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement. Best regards Jonas Dr. Jonas Heitto, LL.M. Senior IP Counsel ALCATEL-LUCENT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS * Tel +49 711 821 44561 * Fax +49 711 821 44587 jonas.heitto at alcatel-lucent.com Alcatel-Lucent Deutschland AG Lorenzstra?e 10 70435 Stuttgart Sitz der Gesellschaft/ Domicile of the Company: Stuttgart . Amtsgericht/ District Court Stuttgart HRB 4026 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates/ Chairman of the Board of Directors: Michael Oppenhoff Vorstand/ Board of Management: Alf Henryk Wulf (Vorsitzender/ Chairman) . Hans-J?rg Daub . Dr. Rainer Fechner . Andreas Gehe Note: This e-mail message and any documents accompanying it may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information belonging to Alcatel-Lucent. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us and delete all copies of the transmission. ________________________________ From: fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of JUAN JOSE HIERRO SUREDA Sent: Montag, 13. Mai 2013 10:01 To: Alex Glikson Cc: fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; Theilmann, Wolfgang; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: Re: [Fiware-wpl] [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Dear Alex, Regarding access to users of the FI-WARE OIL, I believe that there was agreement, because it has been discussed multiple times, that access rights will be granted royalty-free as well, subject to FI-WARE OIL Terms and Conditions. I agree that we have to add the "subject to FI-WARE OIL Terms and Conditions" would need to be added, but nothing more. Therefore, my proposed revised statement would be: The commitment by FI-WARE partners is to grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to the FI-WARE GEis for the execution of FI-PPP projects (including FI-WARE), in line with what is stated in the Collaboration Agreement. Note that this not only applies to partners of FI-PPP projects but also third party users of the FI-WARE OIL (since offering FI-WARE GEis royalty-free to them is essential for the execution of FI-WARE and the FI-PPP program). Users of the FI-WARE OIL refer to third parties that will adhere to the FI-WARE OIL terms and conditions. It's ok then to you and rest of partners ? BTW, it's our intend to provide a first draft of the FI-WARE OIL Terms and Conditions this week as to start the discussion and get it finalized on time. Cheers, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 On 13/05/13 09:35, Alex Glikson wrote: Dear Juanjo, Regarding point #1.. IMO, if we want to make progress faster, it might be a good idea to distinguish between Use Cases and OIL. IPR for Use Cases has been discussed many times, including Collaboration Agreement, and it sounds feasible to reach a decision there (maybe with some facilitation from EC). However, the discussion on terms and conditions for OIL only started, and it might be premature at the moment to assume a very specific approach to IPR. Clearly, it should have some sort of alignment with the spirit of the terms and conditions for Use Cases -- but there are many details which yet need to be nailed down and agreed. Regards, Alex ==================================================================================================== Alex Glikson Manager, Cloud Operating System Technologies, IBM Haifa Research Lab http://w3.haifa.ibm.com/dept/stt/cloud_sys.html | http://www.research.ibm.com/haifa/dept/stt/cloud_sys.shtml Email: glikson at il.ibm.com | Phone: +972-4-8281085 | Mobile: +972-54-6466667 | Fax: +972-4-8296112 From: Juanjo Hierro To: "fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu" , Cc: "Theilmann, Wolfgang" , "fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu" , "fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu" Date: 13/05/2013 09:27 AM Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Sent by: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu ________________________________ Hi, Please find below the response by our PO, Arian Zwegers, to my email describing the issue on IPR management of background associated to FI-WARE GEis. Essentially, our PO: 1. asks us to clearly state what is our position regarding IPRs to background associated to the FI-WARE GEis 2. would go for a solution consisting in a formal letter by Jes?s Villasante o Peter Fatelning (Head and Deputy Head of Unit, respectively) stating that the fact that contents of B.2.3.4 are refining contents of clause 41 is considered valid from a legal perspective by the EC I understand that, regarding point 1, we can clearly state that: The commitment by FI-WARE partners is to grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to the FI-WARE GEis for the execution of FI-PPP projects (including FI-WARE), in line with what is stated in the Collaboration Agreement. Note that this not only applies to partners of FI-PPP projects but also third party users of the FI-WARE OIL (since offering FI-WARE GEis royalty-free to them is essential for the execution of FI-WARE and the FI-PPP program). Unless we receive any objection by end of this week, in which case we would have to confirm the position of each partner to send a detailed report on each partner's position to the EC, I will provide this statement in a response to the mail of our PO. Regarding point 2, the solution proposed by our PO it's ok for Telef?nica, but we need to know if anyone objects. Please also express any objection by the end of this week. Please ask your legal representatives about the questions above, if you need to. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 04:34:04 +0000 From: To: , CC: , , Dear Juanjo, Your explanation of the collaboration agreement is surprising. As you know, we don't know the contents. The SAP explanation is a surprise, since it always came across that - SAP did not want to be obliged to provide background to complementary beneficiaries, only to beneficiaries. I always thought that that was in the collaboration agreement, if anything at all. - (since providing background needs to be done and royalty-free) removing the paragraph still keeps the perceived conflict between clause 41 (as you mentioned on Friday, SAP perceives that the clause does not allow any background to be provided to complementary beneficiaries) and the collaboration agreement. That argument is not mentioned anymore??? The second point is also still valid in the Telefonica solution. Perhaps we should start from the beginning. What is it that the FI-WARE consortium want to say about background to complementary beneficiaries? Note that we are not interested in Telefonica's or SAP's position, only the consortium's. Depending on the answer to the question above, I would favour the last option. Peter or Jesus could write an email. "Valid from a legal perspective" can only be tested in a court of law anyway; until then, all is opinion. Best regards, Arian ________________________________________ From: Juanjo Hierro [jhierro at tid.es] Sent: 07 May 2013 19:24 To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; Javier de Pedro Sanchez; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Subject: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Dear Arian and Ragnar, Following our conversation last friday, I would like to explain the IPR management issue we have potentially identified in the current Grant Agreement which we would like to get solved in amendment 5. In this mail, I will elaborate on: 1. The issue itself 2. The alternative solutions proposed by some of the partners in FI-WARE 3. Some thoughts about next steps trying to find how to solve the issue 1. The issue itself The issue is derived from a contradiction that has been detected by SAP on different places of the Grant Agreement (the contract). On one hand, the B.3.2.4 section on IPR included in the FI-WARE DoW (formally referred as Annex I of the Grant Agreement) states the following: [cid:part1.08040204.00010208 at tid.es] This paragraph was based on what we already stated in our proposal and was also requested by the EC. It was also aligned with clauses related to access rights to FI-WARE GE specifications and implementations in the FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement. However, special clause 41 in article 7 of the Grant Agreement states the following which apparently contradicts what was said in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW: [cid:part2.04080501.01050601 at tid.es] Besides this, there is article of the Grant Agreement that elaborates on what interpretation should prevail in case of conflicts between different parts of the Grant Agreement: [cid:part3.07080809.01050802 at tid.es] That would mean that what was stated in special clause 41 in article 7 would take precedence over what was stated in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW. It seems like it would be worth fixing this contradictions in an amendment of the DoW. 2. The alternative solutions proposed by SAP and Telefonica 2.1 Solution proposed by SAP The solution proposed by SAP is simple: drop the conflicting paragraph on section B.3.2.4. Consequently, just relying on what the Grant Agreement states, users of FI-WARE in the context of the FI-PPP could be charged for the background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation. However, since the Collaboration Agreement states that access to background associated to FI-WARE GE implementations has to be granted royalty-free, this 'ability' to charge for background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation would not be executable in practice unless breaking the Collaboration Agreement. Implementing the proposal, the Grant Agreement would become consistent, and the goal to keep access to both background and foreground granted royalty-free would be kept preserved through the Collaboration Agreement. 2.2. Solution proposed by Telefonica Telefonica's proposal was also simple: * Fix special clause 41 so that it reads as follows (changes marked in red): Complementary beneficiaries enjoy the rights and bear the obligations of beneficiaries with regard to Articles II.32, II.33 and II.34 of Annex II {Access Rights}. However, for complementary beneficiaries, these rights and obligations are limited to foreground and background associated only to FI-WARE GE implementations developed in FI-WARE the project. Therefore, they do not extend to background that is not part of FI-WARE GE implementations or required for them to run. Complementary beneficiaries are not members of the consortium for the purpose of this grant agreement * Clarify paragraph in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW for the avoidance of doubt: Access Rights to Foreground and Background associated to FI-WARE GE implementations needed for the execution of the FI-PPP projects and users who carry out experiments in the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab as long as the FI-WARE project lasts, shall be deemed granted on a Royalty-Free basis. Other than in exceptional circumstances and only for Background specifically identified, no costs shall be charged for granting such Access Rights. The FI-WARE beneficiaries will not charge any such costs to the project. The whole idea would be to fix the Grant Agreement as to reflect what was the spirit of the program since the beginning, without the need to rely on the Collaboration Agreement. Note that the EC is party in the Grant Agreement but not the Collaboration Agreement, therefore this proposal allows the EC to act against any partner that doesn't grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation for the execution of projects in the FI-PPP. With SAP's proposal, it is up to partners signing the Collaboration Agreement to decide whether to sue or not any partner who decides to charge for background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation. Furthermore, the proposal intends to fix any uncertainties regarding usage of background of FI-WARE GE implementations by third parties users of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab (could be a party running an experiment on the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab be considered as a partner of the FI-PPP ? We believe it is not so clear, so better that we make it clear that access to background and foreground associated to FI-WARE GE implementations will be granted royalty-free to third parties users of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab 3. Some thoughts about next steps trying to find how to solve the issue It would be important that this issue be solved in amendment 5. Obviously, one potential alternative would be to go for one of the two proposals described in the previous point. At the current moment, the solution proposed by Telefonica was endorsed by more partners within FI-WARE (up to 14 partners). The proposal made by SAP was supported by two partners (one being SAP). The rest of partners seem to abstain. Another possibility would be that the EC makes a formal statement that the special clause 41 doesn't get into contradiction with the mentioned paragraph in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW so the DoW in practice is refining what the clause 41 was stating in a first approach. Note that such statement to be provided by the EC should be formal and valid from a legal perspective. Looking forward your response. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx[attachment "ATT00001.png" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "ATT00002.png" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] [attachment "ATT00003.png" deleted by Alex Glikson/Haifa/IBM] _______________________________________________ Fiware-pcc mailing list Fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-pcc ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com Wed May 15 14:21:11 2013 From: burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com (Neidecker-Lutz, Burkhard) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 12:21:11 +0000 Subject: [Fiware-ga] [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis In-Reply-To: <51908828.3070908@tid.es> References: <69AD1A9684E7184DADBE43806285BA9D06DA87B1@S-DC-ESTF03-B.net1.cec.eu.int> <51908828.3070908@tid.es> Message-ID: Dear Juanjo, dear Arian, Let me try to summarize SAPs position (which seems to be misunderstood) and what we perceive to be the consortium intent after all (and probably several of the proposed solutions will in the end be acceptable). The current DoW indeed does restrict the access to background due to overly broad language (background instead of complimentary background and the override rules between the sections). Note that these changes restricting the access was made at the request of some French consortium partners, not SAP. Despite this restriction, the Collaboration Agreement indeed *does* give the intended royalty free access to all parties to the Collaboration Agreement. The current DoW alone as currently worded, does not. What the consortium *agreement* seems to be is that access to all foreground and background *in GE implementations* (i.e. complementary foreground and background) is always royalty free for all parties to the FI-PPP agreements and while there is an ongoing discussion around this (because that is *not* covered by any of the current agreements is that the parties in the OIL will also be granted royalty free access despite them not being party to any of the FI-PPP contracts. Note that SAPs position on this was that: a) Access to the GE *specifications* needs to be not only open and royalty free but also needs a patent grant allowing conforming open source implementations that are guaranteed not to violate any essential patents of the FI-PPP members (something the SAP owned GE specs are licensed under) b) The GE *implementations* of SAP are all released under a very permissive open source license (BSD) to ensure both royalty free access to the FI-PPP, OIL users or anybody else. c) Where SAP needs to use SAP background IP *outside a GE implementation* (i.e. outside complimentary background) we can maintain control over that. It was point c) that actually prompted our current attempt to clarify the language of the warring provisions of the different paragraphs in the FI-Ware DoW, certainly no desire to charge for any GEs inside or outside the FI-PPP. Burkhard Neidecker-Lutz Fellow | Next Business and Technology AR. Mgmt AG SAP AG | Vincenz-Priessnitz-Strasse 1 | 76131 Karlsruhe | Germany T +49 6227 7-52533 | M +49 160-8896858 | E burkhard.neidecker-lutz at sap.com www.sap.com Please consider the impact on the environment before printing this e-mail. Pflichtangaben/Mandatory Disclosure Statements: http://www.sap.com/company/legal/impressum.epx Diese E-Mail kann Betriebs- oder Gesch?ftsgeheimnisse oder sonstige vertrauliche Informationen enthalten. Sollten Sie diese E-Mail irrt?mlich erhalten haben, ist Ihnen eine Kenntnisnahme des Inhalts, eine Vervielf?ltigung oder Weitergabe der E-Mail ausdr?cklich untersagt. Bitte benachrichtigen Sie uns und vernichten Sie die empfangene E-Mail. Vielen Dank. This e-mail may contain trade secrets or privileged, undisclosed, or otherwise confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are hereby notified that any review, copying, or distribution of it is strictly prohibited. Please inform us immediately and destroy the original transmittal. Thank you for your cooperation. From: fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-pcc-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Juanjo Hierro Sent: Montag, 13. Mai 2013 08:29 To: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: Theilmann, Wolfgang; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Subject: [Fiware-pcc] Fwd: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Hi, Please find below the response by our PO, Arian Zwegers, to my email describing the issue on IPR management of background associated to FI-WARE GEis. Essentially, our PO: 1. asks us to clearly state what is our position regarding IPRs to background associated to the FI-WARE GEis 2. would go for a solution consisting in a formal letter by Jes?s Villasante o Peter Fatelning (Head and Deputy Head of Unit, respectively) stating that the fact that contents of B.2.3.4 are refining contents of clause 41 is considered valid from a legal perspective by the EC I understand that, regarding point 1, we can clearly state that: The commitment by FI-WARE partners is to grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to the FI-WARE GEis for the execution of FI-PPP projects (including FI-WARE), in line with what is stated in the Collaboration Agreement. Note that this not only applies to partners of FI-PPP projects but also third party users of the FI-WARE OIL (since offering FI-WARE GEis royalty-free to them is essential for the execution of FI-WARE and the FI-PPP program). Unless we receive any objection by end of this week, in which case we would have to confirm the position of each partner to send a detailed report on each partner's position to the EC, I will provide this statement in a response to the mail of our PO. Regarding point 2, the solution proposed by our PO it's ok for Telef?nica, but we need to know if anyone objects. Please also express any objection by the end of this week. Please ask your legal representatives about the questions above, if you need to. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 04:34:04 +0000 From: To: , CC: , , Dear Juanjo, Your explanation of the collaboration agreement is surprising. As you know, we don't know the contents. The SAP explanation is a surprise, since it always came across that - SAP did not want to be obliged to provide background to complementary beneficiaries, only to beneficiaries. I always thought that that was in the collaboration agreement, if anything at all. - (since providing background needs to be done and royalty-free) removing the paragraph still keeps the perceived conflict between clause 41 (as you mentioned on Friday, SAP perceives that the clause does not allow any background to be provided to complementary beneficiaries) and the collaboration agreement. That argument is not mentioned anymore??? The second point is also still valid in the Telefonica solution. Perhaps we should start from the beginning. What is it that the FI-WARE consortium want to say about background to complementary beneficiaries? Note that we are not interested in Telefonica's or SAP's position, only the consortium's. Depending on the answer to the question above, I would favour the last option. Peter or Jesus could write an email. "Valid from a legal perspective" can only be tested in a court of law anyway; until then, all is opinion. Best regards, Arian ________________________________________ From: Juanjo Hierro [jhierro at tid.es] Sent: 07 May 2013 19:24 To: ZWEGERS Arian (CNECT); BERGSTROM Ragnar (CNECT) Cc: CNECT-ICT-285248; Javier de Pedro Sanchez; LUIS GARCIA GARCIA; jhierro >> "Juan J. Hierro" Subject: Issue on IPR management of background associated to background of FI-WARE GEis Dear Arian and Ragnar, Following our conversation last friday, I would like to explain the IPR management issue we have potentially identified in the current Grant Agreement which we would like to get solved in amendment 5. In this mail, I will elaborate on: 1. The issue itself 2. The alternative solutions proposed by some of the partners in FI-WARE 3. Some thoughts about next steps trying to find how to solve the issue 1. The issue itself The issue is derived from a contradiction that has been detected by SAP on different places of the Grant Agreement (the contract). On one hand, the B.3.2.4 section on IPR included in the FI-WARE DoW (formally referred as Annex I of the Grant Agreement) states the following: [cid:part1.08040204.00010208 at tid.es] This paragraph was based on what we already stated in our proposal and was also requested by the EC. It was also aligned with clauses related to access rights to FI-WARE GE specifications and implementations in the FI-PPP Collaboration Agreement. However, special clause 41 in article 7 of the Grant Agreement states the following which apparently contradicts what was said in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW: [cid:part2.04080501.01050601 at tid.es] Besides this, there is article of the Grant Agreement that elaborates on what interpretation should prevail in case of conflicts between different parts of the Grant Agreement: [cid:part3.07080809.01050802 at tid.es] That would mean that what was stated in special clause 41 in article 7 would take precedence over what was stated in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW. It seems like it would be worth fixing this contradictions in an amendment of the DoW. 2. The alternative solutions proposed by SAP and Telefonica 2.1 Solution proposed by SAP The solution proposed by SAP is simple: drop the conflicting paragraph on section B.3.2.4. Consequently, just relying on what the Grant Agreement states, users of FI-WARE in the context of the FI-PPP could be charged for the background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation. However, since the Collaboration Agreement states that access to background associated to FI-WARE GE implementations has to be granted royalty-free, this 'ability' to charge for background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation would not be executable in practice unless breaking the Collaboration Agreement. Implementing the proposal, the Grant Agreement would become consistent, and the goal to keep access to both background and foreground granted royalty-free would be kept preserved through the Collaboration Agreement. 2.2. Solution proposed by Telefonica Telefonica's proposal was also simple: * Fix special clause 41 so that it reads as follows (changes marked in red): Complementary beneficiaries enjoy the rights and bear the obligations of beneficiaries with regard to Articles II.32, II.33 and II.34 of Annex II {Access Rights}. However, for complementary beneficiaries, these rights and obligations are limited to foreground and background associated only to FI-WARE GE implementations developed in FI-WARE the project. Therefore, they do not extend to background that is not part of FI-WARE GE implementations or required for them to run. Complementary beneficiaries are not members of the consortium for the purpose of this grant agreement * Clarify paragraph in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW for the avoidance of doubt: Access Rights to Foreground and Background associated to FI-WARE GE implementations needed for the execution of the FI-PPP projects and users who carry out experiments in the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab as long as the FI-WARE project lasts, shall be deemed granted on a Royalty-Free basis. Other than in exceptional circumstances and only for Background specifically identified, no costs shall be charged for granting such Access Rights. The FI-WARE beneficiaries will not charge any such costs to the project. The whole idea would be to fix the Grant Agreement as to reflect what was the spirit of the program since the beginning, without the need to rely on the Collaboration Agreement. Note that the EC is party in the Grant Agreement but not the Collaboration Agreement, therefore this proposal allows the EC to act against any partner that doesn't grant royalty-free access to background and foreground associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation for the execution of projects in the FI-PPP. With SAP's proposal, it is up to partners signing the Collaboration Agreement to decide whether to sue or not any partner who decides to charge for background associated to a FI-WARE GE implementation. Furthermore, the proposal intends to fix any uncertainties regarding usage of background of FI-WARE GE implementations by third parties users of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab (could be a party running an experiment on the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab be considered as a partner of the FI-PPP ? We believe it is not so clear, so better that we make it clear that access to background and foreground associated to FI-WARE GE implementations will be granted royalty-free to third parties users of the FI-WARE Open Innovation Lab 3. Some thoughts about next steps trying to find how to solve the issue It would be important that this issue be solved in amendment 5. Obviously, one potential alternative would be to go for one of the two proposals described in the previous point. At the current moment, the solution proposed by Telefonica was endorsed by more partners within FI-WARE (up to 14 partners). The proposal made by SAP was supported by two partners (one being SAP). The rest of partners seem to abstain. Another possibility would be that the EC makes a formal statement that the special clause 41 doesn't get into contradiction with the mentioned paragraph in section B.3.2.4 of the DoW so the DoW in practice is refining what the clause 41 was stating in a first approach. Note that such statement to be provided by the EC should be formal and valid from a legal perspective. Looking forward your response. Best regards, -- Juanjo Hierro ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Tue May 21 06:17:56 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 06:17:56 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-ga] VERY IMPORTANT: LEGAL NOTICE to attach to FI-WARE Open Specifications In-Reply-To: <51950D41.3000708@tid.es> References: <51950D41.3000708@tid.es> Message-ID: <519AF574.6020009@tid.es> Dear all, Just to keep you informed about the progress of this matter and keep you aware in case people from your legal department approach you with questions. After quite a long period, we believe at TID that we have managed to finalize the wording of the Legal Notices that will accompany the FI-WARE GE Open Specifications. Please find enclosed the consolidated drafts, reflecting all gathered comments from the different legal representatives, if you are interested. A very final round has been setup to get these legal notices definitively closed by next Wednesday May 22nd. In the meantime, we have created two new pages on the wiki that will contain the final wording for the two valid Legal Notices by EOB May 22nd and currently contain the current draft (which we consider 95% of probabilities final and certainly more polished than the versions being used so far): * FI-WARE Open Specification Legal Notice (essential patents license): http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FI-WARE_Open_Specification_Legal_Notice_(essential_patents_license) * FI-WARE Open Specification Legal Notice (implicit patents license): http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FI-WARE_Open_Specification_Legal_Notice_(implicit_patents_license) It is our intention to start submitting the Open Specifications deliverable immediately after May 22nd (of course, each WP once it has already finished all the planned peer-reviews). As I have said, that day we expect that the wording of the Legal Notices will be actually finished so we will update the contents of the wiki pages above accordingly. We highly encourage you to update the wiki pages associated to your specifications in the meantime, as to point to one of the above legal notices wiki pages, replacing the current links to interim legal notices used up to now. That way, when we start submitting the deliverables, they several FI-WARE GE Open Specifications will be referring to any of the two wiki pages above. Which of the two Legal Notices to use is up to you. For the sake of your information, IBM and Telefonica will use the legal notice with implicit patents license while, as far as I understand, SAP is going to use the legal notice with essential patents license. Telef?nica recommends to use the legal notice with implicit patents license but, again, feel free to use the one that is more suitable to you. We will deal with deliverables this way but after May 22nd and before closing FI-WARE Release 2 (end of June) we will see how to comply with one of the requirements from some of the attorneys that have to do with making the copyright holders and the text of the Legal Notice become an integral part of the FI-WARE Open Specifications (or at least create a dedicated wiki page associated to a personalized Legal Notice per specification with the name of the specification, the name of the copyright holders and the text of the Legal Notice). We will provide detailed instructions about the changes to implement at wiki level to cope with this requirement. But, again, this can wait until after we have submitted the deliverables, which is the very urgent thing now. Last but not least, one detail: as you would be able to see in the attached emails, some attorneys of some partners have surprisingly raised the question about the public and royalty-free nature of FI-WARE GE Open Specifications ... This, I have to confess, has astonished me in the first place because this is a very fundamental principle in FI-WARE that was not only stated in the DoW but also in the Consortium Agreement. Therefore, I have replied to those attorneys that this was not a matter of discussion and if they have any doubt in that respect, they should approach their technical/management representative so that they solve whatever doubt they may have. Just wanted to let you know this in case that they approach you on the matter. As you can see, I have clearly stated that we will have to inform the EC about those who won't comply with this basic rule so they have to balance the consequences. Best regards, -- Juanjo -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Fiware-legal] FI-WARE LEGAL NOTICE Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 18:45:53 +0200 From: Juanjo Hierro To: LUIS GARCIA GARCIA , "fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu" On 16/05/13 15:48, LUIS GARCIA GARCIA wrote: Dear all, ... No modifications have been introduced affecting the Royalty free character of this Legal Notice. This RF nature is in the essence of this project and in accordance with the FI-WARE Grant Agreement and Consortium Agreement and cannot be a matter of discussion. It's a very fundamental principle of this project that was agreed even at proposal preparation time (i.e., 3 years ago). Hi all, I would like to emphasize this last statement by Luis. Actually, breaking the public and royalty-free nature of FI-WARE GE Open Specifications would be considered a infringement of the FI-WARE contract (Grant Agreement) and would certainly be considered in the approval or rejection of reported costs. Note that neither Luis nor me intend to respond any message from anyone questioning this. It's absolute out of questioning and we will not spend any more minute on the matter and we wouldn't recommend that you spend any minute either. I'm pretty sure that the technical and business managers from every partner are fully aware of this very basic principle in FI-WARE, so if you still have some doubts, you just need to double-check with them. I also want to emphasize that the deadline of Wednesday 22nd is absolutely final. We intend to close the wording of the Legal Notices at that date unless someone finds a big mistake/issue everyone would agree that has to be fixed (honestly, I can't guess which). Actually, we believe that the current draft is perfectly valid and complete. Of course, the path towards absolute perfection never ends, but precisely because we will be able to evolve contents of the Legal Notice in the future if found necessary, it's time to close NOW a first valid version of the Legal Notices that we can attach to the FI-WARE Open Specifications. Immediately afterwards, we will provide instructions as to attach one of the two defined Legal Notices to each of the FI-WARE GE Open Specifications. We will then define a deadline for binding the FI-WARE GE Open Specifications to any of the defined Legal Notices after which we will report to the EC what are the FI-WARE GE Open Specifications for which such request has not been met. The corresponding Copyright Holders will have to measure the consequences of not complying this request by the coordinator and the subsequent reaction by the EC. Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Fiware-legal mailing list Fiware-legal at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-legal -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: LUIS GARCIA GARCIA Subject: FI-WARE LEGAL NOTICE Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 15:48:45 +0200 Size: 118688 URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed May 22 19:01:22 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:01:22 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Creation of new WP as a result of incorporating beneficiaries of the 2nd Open Call Message-ID: <519CF9E2.3020002@tid.es> Hi all, As you perfectly know, a number of new partners will join the FI-WARE consortium as a result of the 2nd Open Call. I have given a careful thought to the way these new beneficiaries of the 2nd Open Call could be integrated in FI-WARE. Overall, looking for an approach that makes sense technically in the first place but also makes sense from an organizational perspective. It is obvious that Advanced Web-based User Interface GEs should fit within a new WP because existing WPs are not so much related. In a first approach, one may go for a design where there essentially the activities devised in the WeX proposal (dealing with the topic on Advanced Web-based User Interface in the 2nd Open Call) would go to that WP, while activities addressed in the FI-INMEDIA (dealing with the another topic on Stream-oriented GEs in the 2nd Open Call) may go to the WP on Data/Context Management. However, this would lead to a situation which is a bit unbalanced because the new WP will be very small compare to others. Besides, the Data/Context Management WP would become rather huge and difficult to manage. The solution that has came to my mind would consist in adding a new WP devoted to "Advanced Middleware, Web-based User Interface and Multimedia Enablers". This WP would concentrate tasks linked to specification and reference implementation of enablers targeted to: * support development of Web-based User Interfaces covering 3D and augmented reality and multimedia aspects * support multimedia enablers that may help to deal with stream processing and delivery of multimedia contents * advanced middleware technologies (i.e., KIARA) intended to help the above enablers to reach the best performance The Working Package Leader (WPL) would be ZHAW and I believe that the best idea would be to propose that DKFI becomes the Working Package Architect (WPA). Of course, all this under the necessary technical and overall coordination by TID and follow-up through the regular joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcalls. I see several advantages on this approach. Among others, moving KIARA to the new WP would help to better work on the details about how the KIARA middleware can be used to support the quite challenging requirements on performance that are expected for the other GEs to be provided by this WP. Besides, the approach would allow to concentrate the resources of DFKI in a single WP, thus easing their task as WPA. DFKI would not be only involved in the KIARA activities but also in the activities dealing with overall design of the architecture that supports advanced Web-based User Interfaces covering 3D and augmented reality capabilities and stream-related enablers dealing with processing and delivery of multimedia contents, contributing their know-how in both fields and also the fact that the proposed contributions for the first topic were relying on open source technologies developed at DFKI. I have already discussed this within TID (currently WPL in the Data/Context Management WP) in addition to ZHAW and DFKI (because they would become the WPL and WPA of this new WP, respectively) and they agree with this movement. Therefore, we will go for implementing the addition of this new WP in amendment 5 that for which the negotiation is going to start soon. Note that we intend to close this new amendment rather soon (targeting end of this month or first week of June). Therefore, we will proceed with this approach unless we receive an elaborated objection by any of you. I cannot imagine about any reason why there may be any objection to this but, formally, we had to ask :-) Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed May 22 19:01:36 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:01:36 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Creation of new WP as a result of incorporating beneficiaries of the 2nd Open Call Message-ID: <519CF9F0.8030502@tid.es> Hi all, As you perfectly know, a number of new partners will join the FI-WARE consortium as a result of the 2nd Open Call. I have given a careful thought to the way these new beneficiaries of the 2nd Open Call could be integrated in FI-WARE. Overall, looking for an approach that makes sense technically in the first place but also makes sense from an organizational perspective. It is obvious that Advanced Web-based User Interface GEs should fit within a new WP because existing WPs are not so much related. In a first approach, one may go for a design where there essentially the activities devised in the WeX proposal (dealing with the topic on Advanced Web-based User Interface in the 2nd Open Call) would go to that WP, while activities addressed in the FI-INMEDIA (dealing with the another topic on Stream-oriented GEs in the 2nd Open Call) may go to the WP on Data/Context Management. However, this would lead to a situation which is a bit unbalanced because the new WP will be very small compare to others. Besides, the Data/Context Management WP would become rather huge and difficult to manage. The solution that has came to my mind would consist in adding a new WP devoted to "Advanced Middleware, Web-based User Interface and Multimedia Enablers". This WP would concentrate tasks linked to specification and reference implementation of enablers targeted to: * support development of Web-based User Interfaces covering 3D and augmented reality and multimedia aspects * support multimedia enablers that may help to deal with stream processing and delivery of multimedia contents * advanced middleware technologies (i.e., KIARA) intended to help the above enablers to reach the best performance The Working Package Leader (WPL) would be ZHAW and I believe that the best idea would be to propose that DKFI becomes the Working Package Architect (WPA). Of course, all this under the necessary technical and overall coordination by TID and follow-up through the regular joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcalls. I see several advantages on this approach. Among others, moving KIARA to the new WP would help to better work on the details about how the KIARA middleware can be used to support the quite challenging requirements on performance that are expected for the other GEs to be provided by this WP. Besides, the approach would allow to concentrate the resources of DFKI in a single WP, thus easing their task as WPA. DFKI would not be only involved in the KIARA activities but also in the activities dealing with overall design of the architecture that supports advanced Web-based User Interfaces covering 3D and augmented reality capabilities and stream-related enablers dealing with processing and delivery of multimedia contents, contributing their know-how in both fields and also the fact that the proposed contributions for the first topic were relying on open source technologies developed at DFKI. I have already discussed this within TID (currently WPL in the Data/Context Management WP) in addition to ZHAW and DFKI (because they would become the WPL and WPA of this new WP, respectively) and they agree with this movement. Therefore, we will go for implementing the addition of this new WP in amendment 5 that for which the negotiation is going to start soon. Note that we intend to close this new amendment rather soon (targeting end of this month or first week of June). Therefore, we will proceed with this approach unless we receive an elaborated objection by any of you. I cannot imagine about any reason why there may be any objection to this but, formally, we had to ask :-) Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.depanfilis at eng.it Wed May 22 19:54:03 2013 From: stefano.depanfilis at eng.it (stefano de panfilis) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 19:54:03 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Creation of new WP as a result of incorporatingbeneficiaries of the 2nd Open Call In-Reply-To: <1369242099348.391269701@boxbe> References: <1369242099348.391269701@boxbe> Message-ID: dear juanjo, i basically do agree, but for the sake of better consistency i do suggest to keep the two ges fi-inmedia and Compressed Domain Video Analysis together. in fact the fi-inmedia was born and agreed at the level of the fi-ppp ab to extend and complement with what already specified and provided by the Compressed Domain Video Analysis ge. keeping them separate, i mean in two different wps, migth generate inconsistencies and/or overlaps. so either both in the data chapter or both in the new wp. the argument of size of a wp you put forward is a bit articial in the sense that if we believe a new chapter needs to be in the overall fi-ware architecture than the size per se does not matter at all while keeping things together in an almost unconsistent way foir sure migth generate incomprehensions as well as communication and exploiation issues. so my proposal is to very much welcome the new wp, but also to keep together the content geis well defined in the data chapter. ciao, stefano 2013/5/22 Juanjo Hierro > [image: Boxbe] You chose to allow > Juanjo Hierro (jhierro at tid.es) even though this message failed > authentication > Click to disallow > > Hi all, > > As you perfectly know, a number of new partners will join the FI-WARE > consortium as a result of the 2nd Open Call. > > I have given a careful thought to the way these new beneficiaries of the > 2nd Open Call could be integrated in FI-WARE. Overall, looking for an > approach that makes sense technically in the first place but also makes > sense from an organizational perspective. > > It is obvious that Advanced Web-based User Interface GEs should fit > within a new WP because existing WPs are not so much related. In a first > approach, one may go for a design where there essentially the activities > devised in the WeX proposal (dealing with the topic on Advanced Web-based > User Interface in the 2nd Open Call) would go to that WP, while activities > addressed in the FI-INMEDIA (dealing with the another topic on > Stream-oriented GEs in the 2nd Open Call) may go to the WP on Data/Context > Management. However, this would lead to a situation which is a bit > unbalanced because the new WP will be very small compare to others. > Besides, the Data/Context Management WP would become rather huge and > difficult to manage. > > The solution that has came to my mind would consist in adding a new WP > devoted to "Advanced Middleware, Web-based User Interface and Multimedia > Enablers". This WP would concentrate tasks linked to specification and > reference implementation of enablers targeted to: > > - support development of Web-based User Interfaces covering 3D and > augmented reality and multimedia aspects > - support multimedia enablers that may help to deal with stream > processing and delivery of multimedia contents > - advanced middleware technologies (i.e., KIARA) intended to help the > above enablers to reach the best performance > > > The Working Package Leader (WPL) would be ZHAW and I believe that the > best idea would be to propose that DKFI becomes the Working Package > Architect (WPA). Of course, all this under the necessary technical and > overall coordination by TID and follow-up through the regular joint > WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcalls. > > I see several advantages on this approach. Among others, moving KIARA > to the new WP would help to better work on the details about how the KIARA > middleware can be used to support the quite challenging requirements on > performance that are expected for the other GEs to be provided by this > WP. Besides, the approach would allow to concentrate the resources of > DFKI in a single WP, thus easing their task as WPA. DFKI would not be > only involved in the KIARA activities but also in the activities dealing > with overall design of the architecture that supports advanced Web-based > User Interfaces covering 3D and augmented reality capabilities and > stream-related enablers dealing with processing and delivery of multimedia > contents, contributing their know-how in both fields and also the fact that > the proposed contributions for the first topic were relying on open source > technologies developed at DFKI. > > I have already discussed this within TID (currently WPL in the > Data/Context Management WP) in addition to ZHAW and DFKI (because they > would become the WPL and WPA of this new WP, respectively) and they agree > with this movement. > > Therefore, we will go for implementing the addition of this new WP in > amendment 5 that for which the negotiation is going to start soon. Note > that we intend to close this new amendment rather soon (targeting end of > this month or first week of June). Therefore, we will proceed with this > approach unless we receive an elaborated objection by any of you. I > cannot imagine about any reason why there may be any objection to this but, > formally, we had to ask :-) > > Best regards, > > -- Juanjo > > ------------- > Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital > website: www.tid.es > email: jhierro at tid.es > twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro > > FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator > and Chief Architect > > You can follow FI-WARE at: > website: http://www.fi-ware.eu > facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 > twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware > linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 > > > ------------------------------ > > Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar > nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace > situado m?s abajo. > This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and > receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: > http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx > > _______________________________________________ > Fiware-ga mailing list > Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu > https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga > > -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhierro at tid.es Wed May 22 20:27:36 2013 From: jhierro at tid.es (Juanjo Hierro) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 20:27:36 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-ga] Creation of new WP as a result of incorporatingbeneficiaries of the 2nd Open Call In-Reply-To: References: <1369242099348.391269701@boxbe> Message-ID: <519D0E18.5040703@tid.es> Hi Stefano, Thanks for your input. Indeed we asked Siemens about their opinion. Let me wait until his feedback and then determine what to do. Cheers, -- Juanjo On 22/05/13 19:54, stefano de panfilis wrote: dear juanjo, i basically do agree, but for the sake of better consistency i do suggest to keep the two ges fi-inmedia and Compressed Domain Video Analysis together. in fact the fi-inmedia was born and agreed at the level of the fi-ppp ab to extend and complement with what already specified and provided by the Compressed Domain Video Analysis ge. keeping them separate, i mean in two different wps, migth generate inconsistencies and/or overlaps. so either both in the data chapter or both in the new wp. the argument of size of a wp you put forward is a bit articial in the sense that if we believe a new chapter needs to be in the overall fi-ware architecture than the size per se does not matter at all while keeping things together in an almost unconsistent way foir sure migth generate incomprehensions as well as communication and exploiation issues. so my proposal is to very much welcome the new wp, but also to keep together the content geis well defined in the data chapter. ciao, stefano 2013/5/22 Juanjo Hierro > [Boxbe] [http://www.boxbe.com/stfopen?tc_serial=14203782183&tc_rand=626565837&utm_source=stf&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ANNO_AFA&utm_content=001] You chose to allow Juanjo Hierro (jhierro at tid.es) even though this message failed authentication Click to disallow Hi all, As you perfectly know, a number of new partners will join the FI-WARE consortium as a result of the 2nd Open Call. I have given a careful thought to the way these new beneficiaries of the 2nd Open Call could be integrated in FI-WARE. Overall, looking for an approach that makes sense technically in the first place but also makes sense from an organizational perspective. It is obvious that Advanced Web-based User Interface GEs should fit within a new WP because existing WPs are not so much related. In a first approach, one may go for a design where there essentially the activities devised in the WeX proposal (dealing with the topic on Advanced Web-based User Interface in the 2nd Open Call) would go to that WP, while activities addressed in the FI-INMEDIA (dealing with the another topic on Stream-oriented GEs in the 2nd Open Call) may go to the WP on Data/Context Management. However, this would lead to a situation which is a bit unbalanced because the new WP will be very small compare to others. Besides, the Data/Context Management WP would become rather huge and difficult to manage. The solution that has came to my mind would consist in adding a new WP devoted to "Advanced Middleware, Web-based User Interface and Multimedia Enablers". This WP would concentrate tasks linked to specification and reference implementation of enablers targeted to: * support development of Web-based User Interfaces covering 3D and augmented reality and multimedia aspects * support multimedia enablers that may help to deal with stream processing and delivery of multimedia contents * advanced middleware technologies (i.e., KIARA) intended to help the above enablers to reach the best performance The Working Package Leader (WPL) would be ZHAW and I believe that the best idea would be to propose that DKFI becomes the Working Package Architect (WPA). Of course, all this under the necessary technical and overall coordination by TID and follow-up through the regular joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcalls. I see several advantages on this approach. Among others, moving KIARA to the new WP would help to better work on the details about how the KIARA middleware can be used to support the quite challenging requirements on performance that are expected for the other GEs to be provided by this WP. Besides, the approach would allow to concentrate the resources of DFKI in a single WP, thus easing their task as WPA. DFKI would not be only involved in the KIARA activities but also in the activities dealing with overall design of the architecture that supports advanced Web-based User Interfaces covering 3D and augmented reality capabilities and stream-related enablers dealing with processing and delivery of multimedia contents, contributing their know-how in both fields and also the fact that the proposed contributions for the first topic were relying on open source technologies developed at DFKI. I have already discussed this within TID (currently WPL in the Data/Context Management WP) in addition to ZHAW and DFKI (because they would become the WPL and WPA of this new WP, respectively) and they agree with this movement. Therefore, we will go for implementing the addition of this new WP in amendment 5 that for which the negotiation is going to start soon. Note that we intend to close this new amendment rather soon (targeting end of this month or first week of June). Therefore, we will proceed with this approach unless we receive an elaborated objection by any of you. I cannot imagine about any reason why there may be any objection to this but, formally, we had to ask :-) Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx _______________________________________________ Fiware-ga mailing list Fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-ga -- Stefano De Panfilis Chief Innovation Officer Engineering Ingegneria Informatica S.p.A. via Riccardo Morandi 32 00148 Roma Italy tel (direct): +39-068307-4295 tel (secr.): +39-068307-4513 fax: +39-068307-4200 cell: +39-335-7542-567 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it Wed May 22 22:36:06 2013 From: pierangelo.garino at telecomitalia.it (Garino Pierangelo) Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 22:36:06 +0200 Subject: [Fiware-ga] R: Creation of new WP as a result of incorporating beneficiaries of the 2nd Open Call In-Reply-To: <519CF9E2.3020002@tid.es> References: <519CF9E2.3020002@tid.es> Message-ID: Hi Juanjo, I basically agree with the proposal you made, I just want to add that, as pointed out by Stefano about the close relationship with GEis of data chapter, another specific connection should be established between the newly created WP and the I2ND one, for what concerns both the CDI and the Cloud Proxy/Edge GEs. In my view it is important that we keep in close contact the developments of this WP which deals with web-based interfaces and the I2ND chapter; as an example the features of the CDI which provide access to device capabilities specifically through JavaScript API can be leveraged in the implementation of those advanced UIs planned in the WP. The same could be envisaged for Cloud Proxy, which can easily host implementations of advanced UIs and related GEs. BR Pier Da: fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ga-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] Per conto di Juanjo Hierro Inviato: mercoled? 22 maggio 2013 19:01 A: fiware-ga at lists.fi-ware.eu Cc: fiware-pcc at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu Oggetto: [Fiware-ga] Creation of new WP as a result of incorporating beneficiaries of the 2nd Open Call Hi all, As you perfectly know, a number of new partners will join the FI-WARE consortium as a result of the 2nd Open Call. I have given a careful thought to the way these new beneficiaries of the 2nd Open Call could be integrated in FI-WARE. Overall, looking for an approach that makes sense technically in the first place but also makes sense from an organizational perspective. It is obvious that Advanced Web-based User Interface GEs should fit within a new WP because existing WPs are not so much related. In a first approach, one may go for a design where there essentially the activities devised in the WeX proposal (dealing with the topic on Advanced Web-based User Interface in the 2nd Open Call) would go to that WP, while activities addressed in the FI-INMEDIA (dealing with the another topic on Stream-oriented GEs in the 2nd Open Call) may go to the WP on Data/Context Management. However, this would lead to a situation which is a bit unbalanced because the new WP will be very small compare to others. Besides, the Data/Context Management WP would become rather huge and difficult to manage. The solution that has came to my mind would consist in adding a new WP devoted to "Advanced Middleware, Web-based User Interface and Multimedia Enablers". This WP would concentrate tasks linked to specification and reference implementation of enablers targeted to: * support development of Web-based User Interfaces covering 3D and augmented reality and multimedia aspects * support multimedia enablers that may help to deal with stream processing and delivery of multimedia contents * advanced middleware technologies (i.e., KIARA) intended to help the above enablers to reach the best performance The Working Package Leader (WPL) would be ZHAW and I believe that the best idea would be to propose that DKFI becomes the Working Package Architect (WPA). Of course, all this under the necessary technical and overall coordination by TID and follow-up through the regular joint WPLs/WPAs follow-up confcalls. I see several advantages on this approach. Among others, moving KIARA to the new WP would help to better work on the details about how the KIARA middleware can be used to support the quite challenging requirements on performance that are expected for the other GEs to be provided by this WP. Besides, the approach would allow to concentrate the resources of DFKI in a single WP, thus easing their task as WPA. DFKI would not be only involved in the KIARA activities but also in the activities dealing with overall design of the architecture that supports advanced Web-based User Interfaces covering 3D and augmented reality capabilities and stream-related enablers dealing with processing and delivery of multimedia contents, contributing their know-how in both fields and also the fact that the proposed contributions for the first topic were relying on open source technologies developed at DFKI. I have already discussed this within TID (currently WPL in the Data/Context Management WP) in addition to ZHAW and DFKI (because they would become the WPL and WPA of this new WP, respectively) and they agree with this movement. Therefore, we will go for implementing the addition of this new WP in amendment 5 that for which the negotiation is going to start soon. Note that we intend to close this new amendment rather soon (targeting end of this month or first week of June). Therefore, we will proceed with this approach unless we receive an elaborated objection by any of you. I cannot imagine about any reason why there may be any objection to this but, formally, we had to ask :-) Best regards, -- Juanjo ------------- Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital website: www.tid.es email: jhierro at tid.es twitter: twitter.com/JuanjoHierro FI-WARE (European Future Internet Core Platform) Coordinator and Chief Architect You can follow FI-WARE at: website: http://www.fi-ware.eu facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/FI-WARE/251366491587242 twitter: http://twitter.com/FIware linkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups/FIWARE-4239932 ________________________________ Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra pol?tica de env?o y recepci?n de correo electr?nico en el enlace situado m?s abajo. This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at: http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [cid:00000000000000000000000000000003 at TI.Disclaimer]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non ? necessario. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 677 bytes Desc: logo Ambiente_foglia2.jpg URL: