JS: AIA Update - Karen Coopenhaven (KarenC) supposed to have met with Microsoft on 21 November 2008
JS: attempting to schedule one for this Friday -- will email KarenC on status
JS: upshot of 12 November 2008 meeting was that Microsoft was going to draft copyright language they wanted for us to review; comes from them, not us tyring to decide what will satisfy them
PB: in general? or just in regards the 2 IAccessible2 requests?
JS: just for these 2 specific requests
JS: copyright statement has permissions
(scribe's note: Olaf joins; Janina recapitulates conversation so far)
JS: series of meetings with Microsoft; Karen Coopenhaven leading discussion, i am attending; first meeting put concerns on table about unspecified qualification -- Microsoft responded from technical perspective, done better job - asked if prefer if they use GPL Free or GPL Free;
JS: KarenC had copyright concerns; second meeting, Karen said not properly function of LF to guess what Microsoft meant; agreed that Microsoft should come up with statement that named its copyright and explicitly gave permission to LF for IA2; waiting to see that statement; have not received copy of draft statement; trying to schedule meeting for this Friday to get clarification so can move IA2 forward; some tricky aspects to copyright, so didn't want to draft on fly
JS: will ask Karen to this call when she is comfortable with language from Microsoft
JS: will try to ping Karen before IA2 meeting
PB: 2 methods similar enough for copyright exclusion?
JS: all they want is copyright on their methods and our IPR; ensured not seeking copyright on entire spec, but just specific requests originating from Microsoft
PB: easy to make separate file
PB: already have Sun Microsystems copyright and IBM copyrights asserted/marked;
JS: other piece is express permission to use those methods
PB: not explicitly their methods; method advocating different, but conceptually the same; fine line between actual names they use versus conceptual items; can't quite get a handle on the subtlties they are attempting to express/exert; close enough to have copyright statement for 2 specific items
JS: at end of process, will have better idea if have better understanding of AIA legal framework and questions that Olaf identified way-back wehn
PB: working on bigger picture, too?
JS: yes, but immediate focus is those 2 methods to advance IA2
PB: how do we work with them on UIA? how do we get the ideal cross-industry cross-vendor API
JS: problem with that area is don't have specific fix on what to look at yet -- only thing on table now is IA2
PB: IA2 wants to know long-term goals are for AIA? have to sign agreement to participate in AIA working groups, so how does Open A11y work with AIA?
JS: don't have those answers yet
GJR: started with global concern, got bogged down in specifics
JS: work out IPR agreement in advance of collaboration while trying to define what we can work together on -- first item these 2 methods for IA2
JS: if succeede here with 2 methods for IA2 at least prove can happen; if want to work on "project x", can advance that or review something from them depending upon circumstances; IA2 moving forward is biggest priority now; have to figure out next steps
PB: Larry Weiss trying to create common API - could be something that exists like AT-SPI, could be any number of things - not a lot of clarity -- how can we have strong input to AIA? with AIA structure, can't have input; happen inside LF or third group needs to be worked out
PB: one unexpected side-effect of discussion was needed to do trademarking in IA2 spec; did on LF private page and asked KarenC to review; need to move that into 1.0.2 -- don't know timing on going to board
GJR: is addition of trademark something i should document in errata?
PB: rather write up bug on it to track it; will just push pertinent files to a11yspec space
PB: whatever legalese we end up with should be easy enough for non-lawyer to understand
OS: wondering about the lisence for the UIAutomation spec; sent email asking for clarification; impression was they would rather talk to lawyers than to developers; problem because of limited resources by developers
JS: second opinion
OS: just wanted to express my impressions
JS: don't want to say "no" to collaboration, but can't compromise our principles
JS: built-in tension between standards and code
JS: conversations been very cordial; approach: "let's figure out way to make this work"
GJR: any word from Andy Updegrove on long-promised LF IPR policy?
JS: no, other than my conversations with Karen; problem with IPR policy is push-back from kernal committee; Andy keeps saying we need an IPR policy; Karen and kernal people say no need; more trouble than worth; concerned that it introduces patent complications
JS: LF board not convinced needs to issue IPR policy due to kernal -- will try and get more info and bring back to Open A11y
JS: need something like that to move forward, so will investigate and report back when have something to report
OS: legal review of IA2 also include patent issues?
JS: good question
OS: if want to claim as open standard, need IPR statement, but never really tackled that
JS: there are Sun, IBM and LF copyright statements in IA2; should consider if need more before actually comes before board; will raise that with KarenC
OS: accessibility stack - Sun very interested in working with us; might take a while to get legal language from our side which is clear; have faith in Karen to do that
JS: Karen very much on top of issues; very clear about explaining concerns in various directions
OS: which type of standard might emerge? with IA2 and AT-SPI need to be properly licencesed so are good bassis for cross-platform work; if have precedent of anything in accessibility stack without proper patents, will have problems
JS: begs question is there anything in there no one thought of yet, but may come back to haunt us at later date
JS: real advantage of open source is avoiding most of this
OS: not all open source libraries are dependent on GPL in same way -- number of different licences in use by different developers, then there is the wide-open approach
ACTION: Janina - raise larger and more general liscencing issues with KarenC
Expert Handlers Links to Further Discussion:
JS: Neil thought things pretty complicated with redesign
JS: Neil also asked what is purpose of portal -- developers, workgroup members, the general public
GJR: developers, not general users
OS: important for public to understand quickly what this is and what this resource is for;
OS: mission statement should be more prominent
GJR: can move link to mission statement to top level "what is the Open Accessibility Workgroup?"
JS: to whom should we speak? how should we advance?
OS: Mark Doffman to KDE list announcing working on Qt bridge; KDE devs would be willing to incorporate if someone documents how can get into this sphere of work
OS: plan on asking Mark to set up documentation page for KDE developers or at least to keep them apprised of developments
OS: planning on approaching Nokia to ascertain if can get funding and people to work on project
OS: Trolltech and Nokia still in process of merging -- waiting to get that out of the way first before approaching them about accessibility work
JS: this year?
JS: probably would't get started until january 2009 anyway
OS: impression is that Nokia behind making Qt useable everywhere - willing to invest a lot into it; need to convince them of importance of a11y to Qt as important for the market
JS: testing and ability to do real-time testing
ACTION GJR: send email with upcoming Open A11y schedule to list