Subject: RE: Electronic Standards Delivery Issue
From: Hanna, William A (william.a.hanna@boeing.com)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 12:44:35 PDT
Members of the DASC:
Seems that we are getting into circular arguments. Here is my input:
1. Standards should not carry Patented work. It can reference patented work when it is absolutely necessary. Also, you need to be careful not to favor one vendor's product over the other. An EDA vendor should not surrender his patent rights to the IEEE because he is willing to support standards work. Members of the standards working groups should avoid bringing patented and/or patenable work to the standards process. We can reference it when it is absolutely necessary.
2. The software packages in the standard are copy right material. It is well understood that the fact that a volunteer did write the package, or a vendor donated it; the act of providing the source to the standards organization implies the surrender of the patent rights to IEEE. These sources should be very generic in nature and should not have anything specific in them that requires a particular vendor specific tool/utility to be able to use it.
3. It is not fair for the IEEE to try to own patent rights of the work of volunteers, or business entities supporting the development of IEEE standards, and for this reason, standards should include neither patented nor patentable software. Standards should be limited to avoid such conflicted situation.
4. Grandfather clock implies that all the old work should be treated as copy right protected only regardless of its contents. New standards shall not include any patetnable software. If it does then the owner of the patents rights has surrendered his rights by the very act of revealing it in a standard.
I for one will not even open a standard document if there is any hint of patent rights of any kind. Let's be reasonable.
Bill Hanna
Tech Fellow
Boeing-Phantom Works Phone: (314) 233-1678
MC S102-1310 Fax: (314) 777-1171
St. Louis, MO 63166-0516 E-Mail: william.a.hanna@boeing.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Zamfirescu [mailto:hxml@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:57 PM
To: Stephen Bailey; John Willis; Paul J. Menchini; stds-dasc@dasc.org
Subject: Re: Electronic Standards Delivery Issue
Steve:
You did not understand the picture.
The idea was to come up with just a general description
(no code) of the functionality for numerics and the floating
point types and let the community to implement
that functionality. In the case of SIGNED, UNSIGNED
there are today at least two implementations that
might comply with a general description. I do
not think that IEEE can claim copyright of both.
As for the FP there is nothing in the IEEE yet
so there is no issue.
Bringing .3 into 1076 will not solve the problem
to accommodate the industry using two versions
of an implementation for SIGNED, UNSIGNED.
While I agree that the industry have to comply to
existing valid IEEE standards, I have to recognize
that we (in developing the standards) might go
too deep in implementation (probably because it
is easier that way) and might restrict some liberties
that (strong) vendors and (weak/naive) users may
want to enjoy.
Best regards,
Alex Zamfirescu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Bailey" <stephen@srbailey.com>
To: "Alex Zamfirescu" <hxml@pacbell.net>; "John Willis"
<john.willis@ftlsys.com>; "Paul J. Menchini" <mench@mench.com>;
<stds-dasc@dasc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: Electronic Standards Delivery Issue
> All,
>
> I want to point out that, although I'm not a lawyer, I believe copyright law
would get in the way of the 1076.3 plans. I believe
> what Alex is proposing would work for a virgin standard. Since 1076.3 has
already been published by the IEEE, the IEEE owns the
> copyright to that work *and all derivative works*. Therefore, simply
removing them from the revised standard would not eliminate
> the IEEE's copyright claims to the "certified compliant implementations" of
the packages as they would clearly be derived from the
> original. Thus, publication and distribution of them without permission from
the IEEE would be illegal.
>
> The real solution here is to get the IEEE to recognize that these souce files
need to be distributed to promote adoption and usage
> of the standard. Again, I would like to point out that if 1076.2, 1076.3 and
1164 were integrated into 1076, this would probably
> side step the IEEE copyright issues as these packages would no longer be
considered by the IEEE to predominantly be the (respective)
> standard. They would only be a relatively small part of a larger standard.
>
> -Steve Bailey
>
>
> > John:
> >
> > The implementations I mentioned are not tools
> > but packages implementing the semantic described
> > in the standards. The existing IEEE 1076.3 contains
> > a formally proved implementation (adders add
> > and multiplier operators multiply), so there is
> > no reason why such certified implementations are not
> > feasible. The only diff is that they will belong into public
> > domain and will enable the use without limits
> > of quality standards.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Alex Z
> >
> > P.S. Another approach would be to license the
> > implementations from consortiums that help (meaning $)
> > the standard development (like Accellera)
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Willis" <john.willis@ftlsys.com>
> > To: "Alex Zamfirescu" <hxml@pacbell.net>; "Paul J. Menchini"
<mench@mench.com>;
> > <stds-dasc@dasc.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:18 PM
> > Subject: Re: Electronic Standards Delivery Issue
> >
> >
> > > Alex,
> > >
> > > Your suggestion makes excellent sense until and unless IEEE
> > > standards becomes a materially "value-added" proposition.
> > >
> > > The issue of "certified-compliant implementation" has its
> > > own complications. It might be worth reviewing some of the
> > > concerns NIST had before getting out of the tool compliance
> > > business. Commercially the business is very marginal.
> > >
> > > Best regards, John
> > >
> > > --On Tuesday, June 10, 2003 01:01:19 PM -0700 Alex Zamfirescu
> > > <hxml@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul:
> > > >
> > > > As you might know IEEE 1076.3 require a soft
> > > > distribution of the packages.
> > > >
> > > > The plan is to re-affirm the standard in 2003 and
> > > > work in sync with all other affected by numerics
> > > > to bring a viable solution that will also include
> > > > variable precision floating point types.
> > > >
> > > > The fact that users have to license the packages from
> > > > the IEEE leads us to thinking about delivering in the future
> > > > only a mathematical description of the functionality in the
> > > > standard, and have "certified compliant implementations" available
> > > > for free on the web. This might be more complicated for
> > > > the standard developers (the working groups) but we
> > > > might need to go that long path to make sure that adoption is
> > > > not stalled by the strong will of the Institute to make
> > > > money at any price. This is a topic that we need to
> > > > discuss at the "Numerics Summit" with all groups involved
> > > > or touched by numerics (including 1076, analog, math
> > > > logic values, Verilog, System Verilog, Synth, possibly
> > > > System C, and why not people bringing in the "logic_arith"
> > > > perspective).
> > > >
> > > > Best regards,
> > > >
> > > > Alex Z
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Paul J. Menchini" <mench@mench.com>
> > > > To: <stds-dasc@dasc.org>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:31 AM
> > > > Subject: Electronic Standards Delivery Issue
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> Ladies and Gentlemen of the DASC,
> > > >>
> > > >> It has come to my attention that there may be a problem with the
IEEE's
> > > >> delivery of certain DASC standards (and possibly other, non-DASC
> > > >> standards) in electronic form.
> > > >>
> > > >> Certain standards (e.g., 1076.2 and, I believe, 1076.3) have computer
> > > >> files included as part of the standard. When any of these standards
is
> > > >> delivered as a physical copy, either a floppy or a CD (containing the
> > > >> computer files) is inserted in the book containing the textual portion
> > > >> of the standard.
> > > >>
> > > >> One DASC member has reported to me that he obtained 1076.2
> > > >> electronically (specifically, as a PDF file) and the delivery did not
> > > >> include the computer files. This report is what triggered my
> > > >> investigation.
> > > >>
> > > >> Has anybody else experienced this problem? If so, I'd like to know as
> > > >> I'm now working with the pubs people at IEEE Standards to resolve this
> > > >> issue. They have confirmed to me that the computer files should be
> > > >> delivered as part of the electronic distribution. They've asked me to
> > > >> identify which standards might be affected by this problem, which
> > > >> prompts this email. And, I've asked them what to do when this
delivery
> > > >> doesn't take place, and hope to soon hear.
> > > >>
> > > >> So, I'd like to know:
> > > >>
> > > >> * (of anybody) If you've ordered an electronic copy of an IEEE
standard
> > > >> that has computer files as part of the standard and did not receive
> > > >> those computer files. If so, please let me know the standard number
> > > >> and, if possible, when you ordered the standard and how.
> > > >>
> > > >> * (of WG Chairs) If your group's standard includes computer files,
> > > >> please let me know its PAR number so that I can have the pubs people
> > > >> double-check its complete electronic delivery.
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, WG and SG Chairs, please distribute this email to your mailing
> > > >> lists so that people who are affected by this issue but are not on the
> > > >> current DASC mailing list will be notified. I apologize in advance
for
> > > >> all those who receive multiple copies of this email.
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks and regards,
> > > >>
> > > >> Paul Menchini
> > > >> DASC Chair
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > John Willis jwillis@ftlsys.com
> > > FTL Systems Inc. FTL Systems UK Ltd
> > > 1620 Greenview Drive SW 2 Venture Road
> > > Rochester, MN 55902 Chilworth Science Park
> > > United States United Kingdom
> > > 1.507.288.3154 (Voice) 44.2380.767.700(Voice)
> > > 1.507.289.1108 (FAX) 44.2380.760.543 (FAX)
> > > http://www.ftlsystems.com http://www.ftlsystems.co.uk
> > >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 12:55:02 PDT