Subject: IBIS 3.0 and legal questions

From: Jon Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 10:41:24 -0700

Hello All,

I sent this note out last week but evidently it didn't get out over the
reflector. I hoped to at least spark some controversy.

This is my feelings on IBIS 3.0 and releasing models in this format.

The copyright for the name IBIS is owned by EIA. Until 3.0 is approved
by that body, IBIS 3.0 does not exist. If anyone publishes models
claiming to be IBIS 3.0 then they are in violation of that copyright and
EIA will probably be forced to take action. 

Besides the legal implications, anyone publishing IBIS 3.0 models before
the official approval is almost certainly to be publishing models which
will NOT be correct. We had to change things to do 2.1 and we will
probably have to change things for 3.0. I will certainly not be putting
any "IBIS OFFICIAL 3.0" models into any of the IBIS data areas until
this specification is approved. I feel very strongly about this. I do
not want what happened to EDIF to happen to IBIS. If you recal, EDIF
(the earlier versions) was almost unusable because everyone had their
own dialect of the "standard" and it was virtually impossible to support
every dialect. At the same time, everyone claim to support EDIF. 

Perhaps we need some PRELIMINARY or EXPERIMENTAL designation for these
new models but we should NOT call them IBIS 3.0.

comments, of course, are solicited.
(but don't correct my spelling).

Jon Powell
Senior Scientist, Viewlogic Consulting Services.
IBIS Librarian

---

From: [email-masked] ( Bob Ross)
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 1997 12:31:28 -0700 (PDT)

Jon and IBIS Committee:

Thank you for raising a concern.  We actually discussed some aspects of it
in the IBIS Open Forum meeting.

I do not agree with portions of your position.

The only official IBIS Standard remains ANSI/EIA-656 of the IBIS Version 2.1
level which is copyrighted by EIA.  In compliance with the long standing
purposes of IBIS, EIA does not copyright or approve the models themselves
which are presented using the IBIS "template".  The model provider may 
optionally copyright the IBIS model using the [Copyright] keyword, NOT EIA.

Version 3.0 has been officially approved by the EIA/IBIS Open Forum - an 
offical EIA committee.  So it will stand as a "legally" APPROVED version of
the IBIS template.  As indicated in the Statement of Intent section, IBIS
Version 3.0 supports backward compatibility to all prior versions starting
with Version 1.0.  We intend to do editorial revisions to IBIS Version 3.0 in
conjunction with developing the IBIS Version 3.0 parser to put forth an IBIS
Version 3.1 release.  Version 3.1 will most likely be forwarded for formal
EIA ratification.  Only after ratification occurs will a new level of IBIS
OFFICIALLY be STANDARDIZED (along with or replacing ANSI/EIA-656.)  In
realilty, this process may take 6 months to a year (or more) based on the 
history of IBIS Version 2.0 (June 1994) to formal ANSI/EIA-656 evolution
(Dec. 1995).

In compliance with "Committment to Backward Compatibility", Version 3.1 will
support the features of Version 3.0.  The functionality and syntax of
Version 3.0 is official.

So I disagree with the first comment.  People may issue IBIS Version 3.0
formatted data in compliance (as best as they can) with the textual content
of the Version 3.0 document.  It will be a while before a parser will be
developed to check the syntax of the new items.  I support your second 
comment that there be strong messages (disclaimers, text, etc.) indicating
that OFFICIAL VERSION 3.0 compliance cannot be VALIDATED. - along with the
usual disclaimers regarding no responsibility for the consequences of using
the model (or the data contained within it).  I see no legal restriction in
using the IBIS Version 3.0 template.  The purpose of issuing the template is
to generate usage!

Bob Ross
Interconnectix

> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 10:41:24 -0700
> From: Jon Powell <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> CC: [email-masked]
> Subject: IBIS 3.0 and legal questions