The rise of the API as a means to deliver services and other business capabilties from the Internet isn't a new development. However, it is a safe prediction for 2009 that the number and variety of APIs for accessing business services will continue to proliferate. In theory, industry standards should benefit as more service providers look for proven models to put up new APIs. You'd also imagine that customers would be demanding adherence to industry standards in the hope that standards would be of help should customers want to get their data back from "the cloud" (see Vinnie Mirchandani's related advice for customers as they move into the cloud).
The reality regarding the role of industry standards as the basis for APIs is messy. In the next several posts, I'll take a look at some of the opportunities and challenges for industry standards. First, I'll take a look at how the licenses under which standards are offered by different standards organizations help and hinder standards adoption and convergence.
Derivations and Modifications
I'm not an IP attorney, but you don't need to be an IP attorney to realize that the lack of a standard license for business language standards adds costs, complexity, and poses a barrier to opportunistic use and convergence of industry standards. The matrix below isn't intended as anything like an in-depth analysis of the IP policies of different standards organizations. But then again, most developers and implementers don't do much research into these licenses anyway. They simply assume freely available standards are available for use without restriction - which isn't always a good assumption. While not wildly divergent, the licenses described below do illustrate a few common differences among licenses.
The major difference among the licenses lies in the treatment of modifications and derivative works. The Open Applications Group and the HR-XML Consortium are similar in design and intent (though if the intent is the same, wouldn't it be even simpler if identical language was used?). These licenses are quite permissive in that they basically allow anyone to do anything with the standards (including making derivative works) without fee or royalty as long as required copyright notices are kept intact. In non-legalese, you might say these licenses allow you to do anything you like with the specifications except call them your own.
Comparatively, the UN/CEFACT license seems most restrictive in that it permits modifications or derivations only to the extent they "comment on" the standard "or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation". It also makes some reference to allowing modifications necessary in the course of developing UN/CEFACT specifications (Hmm... UN/CEFACT giving a license to make modifications in the course of work that UN/CEFACT controls and charters. I think I would a saved a few words and let that be assumed, but then again, I'm not an IP attorney). The Acord license seems to try to strike a balance in that allows derivations and modifications to the Acord standards, but only to the extent such modifications are within the scope of an "insurance activity" implementation.
Restrictions on derivations pose a number of problems. This is particularly the case with respect to any "components" to be shared among standards organizations. There is almost a built-in "waterfall design" assumption that the licensing standards organization can understand and predict on-going needs of relying standards organizations and implementers. One counter-argument in the case of XML standards might be that direct modifications or derivations of licensed content is unnecessary since the base name space can be imported and extended as might be necessary in a given context. While this position is somewhat logical at design-time, at run-time, it may force the handling of multiple name spaces that would violate many API designers' requirements for simplicity. After all, examining how industry standards fit into the current API development frenzy is where I started this post. I think the bottom line is that from the perspective of an API developer looking to design-in simplicity, flexibility, and longevity into an API, standards with restrictions on derivations aren't going to look like good bets.
Don't get me wrong. I recognize that allowing derivations and modifications could potentially weaken a standard (someone out there is thinking "embrace and extend"). On the other hand, focusing on these defensive restrictions does nothing to improve the maturity and suitability of the underlying standards and may in fact discourage real-world trial, testing, and experimentation with the standard that might actually yield feedback on improving the standard!
I'll continue with some additional thoughts on license provisions for business language standards in my next post.
| |
Acord |
HR-XML |
Open Applications Group |
UN/CEFACT |
| Revocability |
Grant of license is "perpetual," but Section 3 describes termination provisions, which may include breach by licensee or the withdrawal or retiring of the license by Acord. |
The HR-XML license does not explicitly include termination provisions nor does it describe its license explicitly as perpertual. Assumed to be a perpertual grant of license, but for breach by licensee. |
The OAGIS license does not explicitly include termination provisions nor does it describe its license explicitly as perpertual. Assumed to be a perpertual grant of license, but for breach by licensee. |
The UN/CEFACT license is explicitly perpetual and irrevocable: "The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by UN/CEFACT or its successors or assigns." |
| Derivative Works |
The Acord license provides two different license options. A "Read and Copy Only" option allows distribution of the standard for study puproses. The "read and copy" license excludes the right of the licensee to modify the standards. The separate "implementation license and sublicense terms" do not explicitly address the right to make modifications, but this would seem to be permissible to the extent such modifications were within the scope of using the standard in "implementation of an insurance activity" and did not stray into the definition of a "prohibited use." |
License gives licensee rights to make modifications and to "redistribute this Work and its documentation, with or without modification." |
License gives explicit permission to licensor to "reproduce, distribute, perform, display and create derivative works" of OAGIS content. |
The UN/CEFACT license seems to restrict derivative works only to those "that comment on or otherwise explain" the UN/CEFACT standard "or assist in its implementation..." It would appear that derivations that are not merely explanatory or assistive are not permitted under the license. The only other permitted modifications are those needed in the course of developing UN/CEFACT specifications. |
| License Terms/Scope |
"Licensor hereby grants without charge to Licensee, on a perpetual, nonexclusive and worldwide basis, the right to utilize the Standard for the purpose of developing, making, having made, and using, marketing, offering to sell, and selling, importing, offering to sublicense, and sublicensing, in each case, to End Users, and to otherwise distribute to End Users, Insurance Products, other than for a Prohibited Use(s), and in all cases subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement and any relevant patent and other intellectual property rights of third parties (which may include members of Licensor)." |
"Permission to use, copy, modify, or redistribute this Work and its documentation, with or without modification, for any purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby granted, provided that you include the following on ALL copies of the software and documentation or portions thereof, including modifications, that you make..." |
"Permissions to reproduce, distribute, perform, display and create derivative works of the contents of this file, in any medium for any purpose and without fee or royalty are hereby granted..." |
"...may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included..." |
NOTE: While to the best of my knowledge the information above was accurate at the time of this post, I am not, of course, an official source of information with respect to any of the above organizations or their licenses. So please make your own evaluations and seek advice as necessary before relying on the information above.
