Re: [jakarta.ee-spec.committee] minimum review period for IP lock in

[Paul Buck <paul.buck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It has been my experience that what some companies do is do an IP review up front based on the project scope before they get involved in a specification or open source project where IP commitments are required. They do that up front to get comfortable with potential implications to their IP portfolio as they engage in the spec work or code contributions to open source. One of the benefits of the approach is that it can stream line the lock in phase.

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 4:07 PM Bill Shannon <bill.shannon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

We've talked previously about the minimum review period for reviews
that lock in IP contributions, and the need to have adequate time for
legal to review such specifications.

I had a conversation with Oracle legal today and we talked about this
issue.  It is Oracle's position that the minimum review period must be
no less than 30 days.  Oracle will not participate in a specification
process where the review period that locks in IP contributions is less
than 30 days.

Ideally the EFSP would specify 30 days as a minimum, to ensure that Oracle
could participate in all Eclipse specification processes derived from the
EFSP, but at the very least the JESP needs to specify this minimum.

It would be interesting to hear what other corporations consider an
adequate review period.

Separately, Oracle is having discussions with the Eclipse IP advisory
committee about how exactly this IP lock in occurs, and how exactly one
could choose to withdraw from a group to avoid IP lock in.  We expect
this issue to be resolved at an Eclipse board meeting in the next month
or two.
_______________________________________________
jakarta.ee-spec.committee mailing list
jakarta.ee-spec.committee@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/jakarta.ee-spec.committee

--

Paul Buck

+1.613.220.6507 (m)