[occi-wg] Unlocking the formats deadlock

Tue May 26 01:40:49 CDT 2009

Guys,

One religious war is already one too many so let's not venture into RAND vs
RF territory as well... IETF policy (foolishly IMO) neither restricts nor
discourages RAND<http://news.cnet.com/Standards-group-beats-back-patent-foes/2100-1013_3-996351.html>as
well but you don't see implementors being taxed for implementing HTTP
now, do you. It's no surprise that such policies exist given the makeup of
these groups but that doesn't mean we need to pander to them.

Thanks Gary for explaining clearly why RAND is simply not going to happen
for OCCI (fortunately we don't need it anyway).

Sam

On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:59 AM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com> wrote:

> What is the definition "reasonable" in terms of licensing ? What are the
> hard costs ?
>
> Patent licensing can be a significant obstacle to adoption.
>
> Do you want students and universities sued for using OCCI technology ?  Do
> you want to pay someone else for the work you did here ?  Does your
> companies want to pay a competitor for your contributions here ?
>
> Look below to see what others considered "reasonable".
>
> The OMA DRM (a standards like body) charged  $.35 per device with a
> $566,000 cap. Intertrust another DRM scheme is $3.5m annually and $325,000
> per carrier. M$ graces us with only $2.9million and $625,000 per year for
> carriers.
>
> Look at MP3 licensing rates from Thompson:
>
> BTW, this means EVERYONE providing an open source mp3 player can be
> prosecuted and sued for up to $15,000 and $5.00 per copy download plus
> damages.
>
> In other places on their website, Thompson demands 3% of "associated" gross
> revenue from distributing content with an mp3 format.
>
> Here is the web site for all of you that want to pay a fee for each mp3
> player you have: http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/
>
> This is pricing from Thompson's public web site:
>
>
>
> -gary
>
>
> Andre Merzky wrote:
>
>> Quoting [Sam Johnston] (May 25 2009):
>>
>>
>>> 5. Sun Cloud API (CC licensed) ??? AE: Evaluate?
>>>> 6. Amazon Web Services as ???de-facto??? (i.e. as Euc. and Nimbus have
>>>> proceeded). ??? AE:public but closed API
>>>>
>>>> If we want to take the middle ground yet not sit on the fence it would
>>>> be a
>>>> useful exercise to see what 4 and 5 offer and do not offer? See where
>>>> our
>>>> efforts here could improve these published APIs and models?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I've done that myself already but you're welcome to go through the
>>> exercise yourself. By my clock you've got less than an hour until you
>>> miss our first deadline.
>>>
>>> By the way, CC licenses are useless to us  without patent pledges.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Please note that OGF sees it as its task to gain such
>> pledges, if the group determines that this is required for
>> the standard to be implementable under "Reasonable and
>> Non-Discriminatory" license terms.
>>
>> For details, see http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies.php,
>> and http://www.ogf.org/About/abt_policies_ipr.php for
>> pledges covering OGSI and OGSA.
>>
>>  "Where the Open Grid Forum knows of rights, or claimed
>>  rights, the Open Grid Forum Secretariat shall attempt to
>>  obtain from the claimant of such rights, a written
>>  assurance that upon approval by the Open Grid Forum of the
>>  relevant Open Grid Forum document(s), any party will be
>>  able to obtain the right to implement, use and distribute
>>  the technology or works when implementing, using or
>>  distributing technology based upon the specific
>>  specification(s) under openly specified, reasonable,
>>  non-discriminatory terms."
>>
>> Hth, Andre.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Sam on iPhone
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of
>>>> Sam Johnston
>>>> Sent: 25 May 2009 17:07
>>>> To: occi-wg at ogf.org
>>>> Subject: [occi-wg] Unlocking the formats deadlock
>>>>
>>>> Afternoon all,
>>>>
>>>> As you know I spent last week evangelising OCCI at the Cloud Computing
>>>> Expo
>>>> in Prague (Monday/Tuesday) and Cloud Computing Expo in London
>>>> (Wednesday/Thursday), presenting the Introduction to the Open Cloud
>>>> Computing
>>>> Interface<http://docs.google.com/Present?docid=ddqm27m2_298fsf9mqdg>
>>>> presentation at both. I was only scheduled for Prague but the organisers
>>>> found a spot on the technical track in London too. I also ended up on
>>>> the
>>>> panels at both which was even more opportunities to talk about cloud
>>>> interop. I'll be in Portugal for Cloud Views from Wednesday and will try
>>>> to
>>>> get involved in OGF 26 time permitting as well. By now people certainly
>>>> know
>>>> we exist and that we're doing real (hopefully good) work.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately we're somewhat stuck on the formats decision despite hours
>>>> of
>>>> face to face discussion with 1/2 a dozen of the more active working
>>>> group
>>>> members (myself, Alexis, Chris & Richard from ElasticHosts and the
>>>> Fujitsu
>>>> guys). While this is not at all unusual for technical discussions we do
>>>> need
>>>> to fairly urgently find a solution before people (myself included) lose
>>>> interest and wander off. I can't overstate how important this working
>>>> group
>>>> is to the future of cloud computing and both of the alternatives are
>>>> rather
>>>> unpalatable:
>>>>
>>>>  *   On one side we have Amazon EC2 APIs which are not only encumbered
>>>> but
>>>> inelegant and inflexible (at least in the context of the enterprise use
>>>> cases I spend most of my time thinking about - no offense intended).
>>>> Other
>>>> APIs designed to expose the functionality of a single implementation
>>>> fall
>>>> into the same category and while they meet their specific needs well, we
>>>> need to expose the current and future functionality of all current and
>>>> future implementations, not just one today. At the extreme end of the
>>>> simplicity scale you have text-based APIs which we all now agree won't
>>>> meet
>>>> our needs.
>>>>  *   At the other end of the scale we have VMware's vCloud API which has
>>>> been injected into the DMTF process, following in the footsteps of OVF.
>>>> I
>>>> fully expect the resulting "open API" to be almost word-for-word
>>>> identical
>>>> to the new VMware APIs which is something the
>>>> DIGISTAN<http://www.digistan.org/> guys call "vendor
>>>> capture<http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition>". Unlike the
>>>> public cloud APIs, this will be well-suited for enterprise and you can
>>>> be
>>>> sure that service providers will deploy VMware en masse to provide it as
>>>> part of their [semi-]private "I can't believe it's not cloud" offerings.
>>>> Good on them for being first and forcing the rest of the industry to
>>>> follow
>>>> their lead.
>>>> This working group's job is to find the middle ground - something which
>>>> is
>>>> simple enough to be useful for public cloud offerings but extensible
>>>> enough
>>>> to be useful for more challenging tasks (e.g. enterprise). This is also
>>>> critical for hybrid clouds (unless you're all happy to implement DMTF's
>>>> APIs
>>>> in addition to your own). The business case is easily justified even if
>>>> only
>>>> on the basis of getting access to customers who are currently kicking
>>>> the
>>>> tyres with tactical deployments but unable to deploy strategically.
>>>>
>>>> As you know I have been pushing Atom[Pub] hard, perhaps too hard, and
>>>> the
>>>> XML-xenophobes have dug their heels in as a result. It was made
>>>> painfully
>>>> obvious in London that blanket application of AtomPub to the problem
>>>> isn't
>>>> going to fly with at least one of them and to that end I've spent the
>>>> weekend working on paring it back where it's not absolutely necessary.
>>>> I've
>>>> also purchased and read O'Reilly's RESTful Web
>>>> Services<http://oreilly.com/catalog/9780596529260/> book by Leonard
>>>> Richardson<http://www.crummy.com/> and Sam Ruby from cover to cover and
>>>> am
>>>> largely sold on their concept of a Resource Oriented Architecture
>>>> (ROA)<
>>>> http://www.infoq.com/resource/articles/richardson-ruby-restful-ws/en/resources/04.pdf
>>>> >
>>>> - do read this sample chapter if you have time.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately I think I've found a simple, elegant solution which obviates
>>>> the
>>>> need for Atom (at least where collections are not required). I've
>>>> captured
>>>> it in a series of 3 blog posts which I'll forward to the list for the
>>>> sake
>>>> of convenience and the archives.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Intel Ireland Limited (Branch)
>>>> Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland
>>>> Registered Number: E902934
>>>>
>>>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
>>>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
>>>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>>>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> occi-wg mailing list
>>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090526/21deb373/attachment.html 