[higgins-dev] IP, copyright, and licensing issues (was something else)

["Tom Doman" <TDoman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Right, I see what you're saying and I don't think there would be any problem from the Novell perspective with creating and sharing a base LDAP oriented vocabulary.  There's probably not even be a problem with sharing code from our context provider nor our entire provider for that matter.  I figure that's a bridge we can cross later if we have our IP, copyright, and licensing ducks in a row.

I mention sharing the code because we're working out the methodology right out here in the open and I'm implementing it and sending out the resulting samples as we work it out.  It's not a big leap to say, "Well, here's the code that implements the methodology that we worked out in the open."  I realize that we're doing a lot of specific work that may be considered outside the goals of Higgins, but at the same time, I think it's shaping and hardening IdAS and the Higgins ontology and I don't think Novell has any real concerns with this specific (LDAP) work being done in conjunction with Higgins, right out in the open.  Dale or Pat may want to chime in here but I will point out that it is worth noting that our context provider work is being done under the bandit-project umbrella which is, itself, an open source project.  So, available as part of Higgins or not, this work will be open source!  If it's not done in Higgins under EPL, it'll be done in bandit under bandit's licensing
agreement (LGPL I believe).

The other reason I mention sharing code is that, currently, you'll notice I don't have an LDAP vocabulary that I'm basing my generated OWL definitions upon.  I'm using OWL itself directly to represent the relationships I want without making up any new properties or relationships to achieve it.  So far, that's working out just fine.  So, there may not even be an "LDAP base vocabulary" to share, but we'll see.  I'm thinking that maybe the syntax work I'm embarking on may be something we'd want to share.

-Tom

>>> "Paul Trevithick" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 9/25/2006 5:10 PM >>>
I have been mulling over IP issues like this for a few days now...

Clearly we can't constrain the copyright/licensing headers (if any) of what
context providers will choose to return from ::getSchema. This is entirely
up to them. 

However, some of the work that you are doing may be reusable across the
entire class of LDAP-based context providers. Consider the case that a
specific LDAP schema returned from ::getSchema on a context provider imports
a HigginsLDAP.owl (that in turn imports higgins.owl)) that provides some of
the base LDAP oriented vocabulary. In this case HigginsLDAP.owl may well be
something that should be an intrinsic part of the Higgins project, and thus
be under EPL, etc.

-Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:higgins-dev-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tom Doman
> Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 4:50 PM
> To: Higgins (Trust Framework) Project developer discussions
> Subject: Re: [higgins-dev] New version of IdAS doc available on wiki
> 
> I can understand a copyright statement in the javadoc and in any static
> OWL file such as the Higgins ontology.  However, the stuff I've been
> sending around has been hand written examples or automatically generated
> examples from a call to my context providers IContext::getSchema
> implementation which return a java.lang.String which happens to be XML
> that represents an OWL ontology.  Should I be placing a copyright
> statement in that XML for every call to IContext::getSchema?  I could ...
> but as a context provider what copyright should I be placing there?  Does
> each context provider dictate it's own licensing agreement or is it
> assumed to be under the eclipse license?
> 
> Tom
> 
> >>> Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@xxxxxxxxxx> 9/25/2006 1:09 PM >>>
> 
> I'm not seeing any Eclipse copyright statements on the Java doc did I miss
> it ? Also in looking at the owl files I did not see it there either.
> 
> Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
> 
> 
> 
>              "Mary Ruddy"
>              <mary@socialphysi
>              cs.org>                                                    To
>              Sent by:                  "'Higgins (Trust Framework) Project
>              higgins-dev-bounc         developer discussions'"
>              es@xxxxxxxxxxx            <higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>                                                                         cc
> 
>              09/19/2006 10:03                                      Subject
>              PM                        [higgins-dev] New version of IdAS
>                                        doc available on wiki
> 
>              Please respond to
>               "Higgins (Trust
>                 Framework)
>              Project developer
>                discussions"
>              <higgins-dev@ecli
>                  pse.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jim's latest IdAS doc (Sep 19th vintage) is available on our wiki.
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> higgins-dev mailing list
> higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx 
> https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev 
_______________________________________________
higgins-dev mailing list
higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx 
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev