IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> The long awaited IP statement fro

IFX Mail Archive: RE: IFX> The long awaited IP statement fro

RE: IFX> The long awaited IP statement from Adobe.

From: Hastings, Tom N (hastings@cp10.es.xerox.com)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 18:24:31 EST

  • Next message: Hastings, Tom N: "RE: IFX> New Orleans Minutes [PDF in the title]"

    Rick,

    You asked for comments on the IP statement from Adobe:

    One clarification that would help avoid confusion since we have lawyers
    involved, is which level of PWG standard is Adobe willing to grant a
    license. I assume that it is when the first PWG Last Call is approved to
    transition from "PWG Proposed Standard" to "PWG Draft Standard" and the
    document is assigned a PWG IEEE-ISTO number, rather than waiting until the
    document has had interoperability testing and passed the second PWG Last
    Call to go from "PWG Draft standard" to "PWG Standard". See
    http://www.pwg.org/chair/pwg-process-990825.pdf
    section 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5.

    But here is what the Adobe IP statement says:

    "Accordingly, Adobe agrees to provide a Royalty Free License to all
    Essential Claims solely for the purpose of implementing the IPP FAX
    Standard. Adobe and the IEEE Printer Working Group will identify and
    establish, within the final, published release of the IPP FAX Standard, a
    process whereby implementers of the IPP FAX Standard can request and obtain
    the above license.

    No license shall be extended to those implementing only draft versions of
    the IPP FAX Standard."

    The terminology is a bit confusing around the word "draft". The PWG process
    has three levels of document:

    1. "PWG Proposed standard" - many versions (we try not to call these
    "drafts", but sometimes do), until a PWG Last Call to move the document to a
    "PWG Draft Standard").

    2. A PWG Draft Standard - passed PWG Last Call, is then assigned an
    IEEE-ISTO number. Currently, the four IPP 5100.1, through 5100.4 are at
    this status, as is the Media Names standard, 5101.1.

    3. A PWG Standard - none have reached this status yet. Needs
    interoperability bake offs and real proof of interoperability.

    A "PWG Proposed Standard" is equivalent to an IETF Internet-Draft and
    neither is yet assigned a number.

    A "PWG Draft Standard" is equivalent to an IETF Proposed Standard, has
    passed WG Last Call and has been assigned an IEEE-ISTO standard number
    (analogous to an IETF RFC number).

    A "PWG Standard" is equivalent to an IETF Draft Standard, and has had
    interoperability testing to prove that conforming implementations
    interoperate and another PWG Last Call.

    I would assume that Adobe would grant a license to implement the PDFax (or
    whatever it is to be called) when it first reaches the "PWG Draft Standard"
    status because it has passed PWG Last Call and has been assigned an
    IEEE-ISTO standard number. Right?

    If we wait for a "PWG Standard" before Adobe will grant a license, no one
    can build a product for interoperability testing.

    So I suggest the following fixes to the IP statement from Adobe [changes
    shown in square brackets]:

    "Accordingly, Adobe agrees to provide a Royalty Free License to all
    Essential Claims solely for the purpose of implementing the [IPP FAX Draft
    Standard and] the IPP FAX Standard. Adobe and the IEEE Printer Working Group
    will identify and establish, within the final, published release of the IPP
    FAX Standard, a process whereby implementers of the IPP FAX Standard can
    request and obtain the above license.

    No license shall be extended to those implementing only draft [maybe even
    delete the word "draft" here] versions of the IPP [Proposed] FAX Standard."

    Thanks,
    Tom

    P.S.
    The chair's page points to an older version of the process which has
    reversed the mapping to the IETF in section 3.6:

    PWG working group charter is equivalent to an IETF working group charter.
    PWG Proposed Standard maps to an initial IETF Internet Draft
    PWG Draft Standard maps to an IETF RFC Draft Standard.
    PWG Standard maps to an IETF RFC Proposed Standard. There is no PWG
    equivalent to the IETF Standard.

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Rick Seeler [mailto:rseeler@adobe.com]
    Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 17:05
    To: ifx@pwg.org
    Subject: IFX> The long awaited IP statement from Adobe.

    IFXers,

    Here is the IP statement Adobe has created specifically for the PWG with
    respect to the use of PDF in an IPPFAX specification.

    Let me know if you have any questions.

    -Rick



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 19 2002 - 18:24:41 EST