Launching the Common Component Specification Project

Allas as a contractor I do not have enough interest in participating. It should have been a paid job for me. ;-)

But good luck with the project!

Sorry to post it here, I see no ideas-basket for this project. But I would appreciate an eclipse erd-plugin.  There is an open-source project that I can recommend tom participate in: ERMaster. See ermaster.sourceforge.net ) - See more at: community.progress.com/.../next_gen_database.aspx

Could be the start of a next-gen star-spangled oe database. ;-)

[quote user="agent_008_nl"]

Allas as a contractor I do not have enough interest in participating. 

[/quote]

So you have no interest in ensuring that your web framework can interact with other framework components?

Sure, but not a commercial interest. I have to earn some money and I'm afraid participating will cost me a lot of unbillable hours. Although I could expect to learn a lot also of course.

Yet Another Type Of License Agreement ,

*  is there an executive summary I can send  to my boss ?

* is it similar to an existing license

As far as I understand it after a quick read PSC gets all rights to distribute the resulting code but I can't find what rights participants get in using the code in their product. Will we be needing a license from PSC to use code that we submitted ?

I don't think you are expected to submit code, but maybe I read even faster. I hate the NDA in any case and would like to see open discussions *here*.

What is this? In a time where Microsoft puts tons of code in Github, Progress decides to start a private project.

Why do I have to answer so many questions to become a participant (my revenue?....)

Why not start a decent Github project.... Sorry i don't get this.

The provision of information about my employer is what has put me off registering for this. It shouldn't matter surely?

> I don't think you are expected to submit code

Section 2.b "Contribution" shall mean any original work of authorship (present and future contributions of object code, source code, documentation and other materials)

Section 3.c. The licenses granted in Sections 3.a. and 3.b. above are effective on the date the Contributor submits (as defined in Section 2.b.) the Contributions to PSC or to the Project.

As I read it you loose all rights to whatever you submit to this program, and if you're lucky PSC will give (sell?) you a license to the resulting code. If you're unlucky they don't include your contribution but they still hold the rights.

I don't know who is already on the program or what's in it , and because of the NDA, those who are can't tell me

Specifications work better when there is code to demonstrate how they're used. Nobody's forcing you to submit code though.

And if you look at the license on the "release" side of the project, community.progress.com/.../releaselicenseagreement.aspx, you'll see the terms PSC is using to pass the code and spec to the community. In order to do that, they need to obtain the license rights from the submitters, and that is why a "you give us all these rights" on the submission side is needed.

Hi Tim,

That bring me back to my initial question :

Is there an executive summary of the set of agreements I can send  to my boss ?

On the one hand I read that you get a lot of rights to use the released specs/code/... on the other hand there is a NDA involved

The initiative looks interesting but the legal documents involved mean that the decision whether I try to join or not are not mine to make.

Note that, I believe, the target of this project is not code, but specifications.  I.e., if one can publish the CCS Specifications for a Security module, then multiple people can create products that match those specifications and make them available on whatever terms they want - licensed or restricted or open source.  The user can be confident what the component will be able to do and can shop among multiple such components for the one they like the most.

This may suit for an "Exec summary:

community.progress.com/.../commoncomponentcharter.aspx

The contributor license isn't that long - you could read it and make your own summary.

community.progress.com/.../contributorlicenseagreement.aspx

Looking at the NDA - community.progress.com/.../nondisclosureagreement.aspx I'm not sure what "confidential information" it would cover - unless that's the discussion of the various specification committees while a spec is "in progress."

[quote user="Thomas Mercer-Hursh"]

I.e., if one can publish the CCS Specifications for a Security module, then multiple people can create products that match those specifications and make them available on whatever terms they want - licensed or restricted or open source.  The user can be confident what the component will be able to do and can shop among multiple such components for the one they like the most.[/quote]

This was exactly the idea as Sunil presented it at PCA 2015. 

You can bring him the executive summary, however my suspicion is will still the attorney's to sign off for you to participate. In very short wording, by signing on you give PSC and other community members the rights to redistribute royalty free the contributions you and your company make to these efforts.

But, is the contribution giving shape to specifications, which seems to mutual benefit and unlikely to impinge much on IP or is it software the implements those specifications, which is a different matter.  It would be nice for people to illustrate points without actual software without those illustrations becoming a part of the distributed product.

Hello all,

As a few of you have asked, in developer words, I would like to summarize different agreements/contracts that CCS Application process needs you to sign and agree to --

1. Contributor's License Agreement - In short, in my own words, this agreement protects your Intellectual Property (IP) which could be thoughts, sample code, test suites etc... by ensuring that you will continue to be the content owner (IP owner) and licensing your IP to Progress for further distribution. We are hoping this will make it easier to share your IP in the CCS community. Hence the closed community that needs you to apply
2. Release license agreement – When the CSS community is ready to release final specs to the open community for consumption, we want to make sure that we license the final specifications to be, within reason, open and usable by the OpenEdge community but protect contributor's rights and contributions. This is important follow-on from the contributor’s License Agreement.
3. Non disclosure Agreement – During the specification process, we want to make sure that your ideas are not disclosed outside the CCS community. Hence we want to make sure that there is a NDA in place between all the CCS participants so you can freely share your ideas. Once the specifications are ready they will be governed by Release license agreement.

I am hopeful that this provides a decent summary to get you started.

Please be aware that this summary is NOT intended to be replacement for you and/or your organization reading, understanding the implications of and agreeing to all the contract/ agreement terms and conditions in the CCS application. For any confusion and clarification, please refer and rely on the actual CCS agreements.

Thanks

Sunil

Why all these abbreviations (CSS, PI)? We have quite enough of them by now and these are there to be quickly forgotten. I know it is en vogue to introduce them exuberantly and it makes an intellectual impression, but for me ICT, XML, JSON and a couple of others are more than enough.

  I'm trying to attribute a couple of ideas, but I'm only doing it in on communities and not in dark rooms. I do not have the idea that what I put together is so unique and special that I want to make what I stole together My Intellectual Property (MIP). Psc (ok, that one is allowed) and a couple of their righteous and honest customers could profit from more open-mindedness.