[Fiware-wpl] Cockpit document for REHEARSAL of the 2nd year review

[Juanjo Hierro]

On 29/05/13 08:57, thierry.nagellen at orange.com<mailto:thierry.nagellen at orange.com> wrote:
Hi All,

Two comments also regarding the rehearsal :

1.       I propose to introduce the agenda with collaboration activities: how new projects have been included in the program (Fi-Ware point of view) Architect Weeks + Webinars. We can show that we try to involve them very quickly and we can also give a first feedback on our understanding how they should/would/could use & implement some GEs in their trials. We can add in this part the views for OIL and Campus Party to show that Fi-Ware is launching the ecosystem.

  This was something I was assuming would be part of the contents of the presentation on major highlights (note this is the first presentation/item in the agenda).

  Nevertheless, I would kindly ask you to add this comment to the point on comments/feedback regarding this action within the google doc so we don't forget and double-check it is covered in that presentation.



2.       Catalogue: I agree with Alex that the approval process is a bottleneck. I think it is better to refine process for the catalogue and how we have to describe things in the catalogue (we have new partners) and use some links to what we have now delivered (first step release 2.2 but in 3 months release 2.3). So we need a clear view today to update regularly the catalogue following the same rules. At least also clarify what is the single entry point for 3rd parties: wiki or catalogue. Focusing last months on our development with are unclear on this critical interface.

  I have asked Miguel to come with a proposal on this matter.   We agree it has became a bottleneck and we have therefore to fix it.


3.       Legal notice: we do not share the same view currently and we have to clarify this point before the review. EC would strongly ask to finalize that for UC projects in phase 2 but also for OIL.

  Do you mean that the fact that we will have two Legal Notices will be seen as an issue by reviewers ?  If so, I would be happy to hear about any constructive proposal on how to solve the issue.

  Telefonica had loved to have one single Legal Notice for obvious reasons ...  but so far, the best compromise we were able to reach was that of having two valid alternatives for the Legal Notice and leave owners of a given spec decide what Legal Notice to agree on regarding a given spec.

  I can elaborate why I believe that the Legal Notice with explicit license on essential patents may become a barrier for potential adopters considering the possibility to implement FI-WARE GE Open Specifications:

  *   The Legal Notice with explicit license on essential patents makes the following explicit statement: we will not sue you if you implement this spec based on an invention we have patented, if WE (the owners of the specs) agree that patent can be considered "essential" (essential meaning that nobody can conceive a reasonable implementation of the spec without relying on the idea/invention protected by the patent).
  *   Therefore, if I were a potential implementer of the spec I would easily think ... "ummm, if they highlight this concept of "essential patent" is because they indeed consider the existence of 'non-essential' patents" ... they may have some of those non-essential patents in their portfolio and may be willing to ask royalties for them if they find that I may have infringed one of those non-essential patents with my implementation ...
  *   Since I cannot see the list of non-essential patents anywhere ... I would tend to think "... should I invest on implementing this spec ?   The risk is that I may be sued because I may have broken something that an owner of the spec may consider "non-essential"
  *   because deciding that the invention in question is actually essential or not is a matter of opinion, I would be therefore in risk that they block the delivery of my product to the market until some jury establish that I was right and that invention should be considered essential ... a question that may well take years ...
  *   Bottom line: is too risky so I will give up and look for a more open and less risky standard/specification to implement.

  The Legal Notice with the implicit license on patents drops any doubts for a potential implementer.  It clearly states:

Subject to all of the terms and conditions below, the Copyright Holders in this Specification hereby grant you, the individual or legal entity exercising permissions granted by this License, a fully-paid up, non-exclusive, nontransferable, perpetual, worldwide, royalty free (without the right to sublicense) license under its respective copyrights incorporated in the Specification, to copy and modify this Specification and to distribute copies of the modified version, and to use this Specification, to create and distribute special purpose specifications and software that is an implementation of this Specification.

without distinguishing between essential and non-essential patents, therefore solving the issues described before.

  Relevant enough, an organization like the OMG (Object Management Group), widely recognized for producing some of the most widely accepted open standards in the last 20 years, had a Legal Notice which followed the approach of the implicit patent license.   That was another reason why we thought it was good to rely on the experience of an organization like OMG when we proposed the initial only version of the Legal Notice.   Interestingly, some of the FI-WARE partners seem that they could live with OMG's legal notice in those case where they contributed specs to OMG.   I have to confess that I didn't understand why they couldn't adopt the same decision in the case of FI-WARE specifications.

  I'm very interesting to hear others' feedback on my reasoning.

  Cheers,

-- Juanjo

BR
Thierry

De : fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> [mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] De la part de Alex Glikson
Envoyé : mercredi 29 mai 2013 08:27
À : Juanjo Hierro
Cc : fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>; fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Objet : Re: [Fiware-wpl] Cockpit document for REHEARSAL of the 2nd year review

Thanks for putting this together.

I have one comment regarding the catalogue. I know that there are several critical changes (including updated 'Terms and Conditions') which are still pending approval for many months (in fact, we failed to deliver on time on the corresponding checkpoint due to this 4 months delay).
Would be good to take care of this early enough.
In particular, I would recommend removing the approval process altogether. This is an unnecessary bottleneck, which prevents timely updates, and makes the catalogue less relevant. We don't have any approvals/moderation in all the other information sources -- I don't see why this should be different here. Handling reviews and updates in a regular way might be much more efficient, IMO.

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<mailto:glikson at il.ibm.com> | Phone: +972-4-8281085 | Mobile: +972-54-6466667 | Fax: +972-4-8296112




From:        Juanjo Hierro <jhierro at tid.es<mailto:jhierro at tid.es>>
To:        "fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>" <fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>>, "fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>" <fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpa at lists.fi-ware.eu>>,
Date:        29/05/2013 09:11 AM
Subject:        [Fiware-wpl] Cockpit document for REHEARSAL of the 2nd year review
Sent by:        fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-wpl-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu>
________________________________



Hi all,

 I have elaborated the following document on Google docs that should help us to prepare our 2nd year project review:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oPxdD2fD7RjMH-AuETYY1r2IL3G0_m0kXiYHt5As5g4/edit?usp=sharing
  As a first input, you will see a proposed agenda.   Please provide comments, etc.

PLEASE send any email on discussion, questions, proposals about the reharsal to fiware-wpl and fiware-wpa writing REHEARSAL on the subject.

 Your constructive comments, feedback, etc. are welcome.

 Cheers,
-- Juanjo

-------------
Product Development and Innovation (PDI) - Telefonica Digital
website: www.tid.es<http://www.tid.es/>
email: jhierro at tid.es<mailto: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<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 política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más 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-wpl mailing list
Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:Fiware-wpl at lists.fi-ware.eu>
https://lists.fi-ware.eu/listinfo/fiware-wpl

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.



________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más 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: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-wpl/attachments/20130530/40d4ec20/attachment.html>