[OpenID board] IPR Policy and Process Proposal

Tue Apr 24 16:19:18 UTC 2007

Hi Gabe,

first let me be clear that it is much better to have a (complex) IPR  
policy than not having any at all. I am grateful to you and everybody  
else who has contributed to this so far.

Also to be clear, my measurement of complexity is very crude: the  
amount of time I (or anybody else) expects to need to spend until  
they understand the IPR policy. That's the equivalent of "how many  
screens do I need to click through to sign up" somewhere. The longer  
it is, the less likely it is that people will get involved. So far,  
we've been doing excellently well on that measure:

"Nobody should own this ... " etc can be read and understood in about  
10 seconds. I'm afraid that we are moving that measure up to 1 hour  
plus.

It may be that it simply cannot be done in, say, 5 minutes. In which  
case, well, that's what we have to live with. Not being a lawyer, I  
will need to trust you and others to make that judgment call for us.

I'm just asking: is there some way we can simplify, even at the cost  
of moving from a 99% solution to an 80% solution (but not a 20%  
solution.) If the answer is no, well, so be it. If if the answer is  
"perhaps a bit", it should be worthwhile to pursue this.

Makes sense?

Thanks,

Johannes.

On Apr 23, 2007, at 18:02, Gabe Wachob wrote:

> Johannes-
>
>
>
> I just don’t see how Microsoft or anyone else on their scale is  
> going to contribute without something much more rigorous in place  
> than what we have now. Verisign’s participation has been great,  
> but I don’t think the IPR issue with Verisign is completely clear  
> to outside parties, or even me!
>
>
>
> You actually document some issues yourself, Johannes, in  
> discussions late last year. For example:
>
>
>
> http://osdir.com/ml/web.openid.specs/2006-12/msg00036.html
>
>
>
> What is too complicated in the current proposal? It’s much lighter- 
> weight than any standards body I know of, and yet requires *no new  
> behavior* of most people participating now (those who don’t care  
> about ever asserting IPR rights). It puts the onus of extra work on  
> those who only want to commit to a more specific set of licensing,  
> as it should. Simple things simple, complicated things more  
> complicated. If don’t care about protecting your IPR w/r/t OpenID,  
> then you do nothing. If you do care, then you have an extra step to  
> do.
>
>
>
> As for the language of the IPR policy itself, I actually think its  
> fairly straightforward – lawyers will have to gnaw on it of course  
> (if we don’t get started on that asap, we’ll never make IIW, to  
> be honest). But I don’t think it’s all that complicated compared  
> to most IPR agreements I’ve seen. Compare to W3C: http:// 
> www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/  or OASIS: http:// 
> www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php  or the IETF’s  
> (which I think is getting an overhaul?): http://www.ietf.org/rfc/ 
> rfc3979.txt
>
>
>
> We’re not forming a standards body here, we’re just trying to  
> make the environment “good enough” to attract a wider set of  
> participants and adopters. Both sides are going to have to work a  
> little bit in a new way, I think. To put a challenge to you, can  
> you give examples of grassroots communities outside formal SDO’s  
> adopting IPR policies that are both acceptable to large IPR-holding  
> organizations as contributors and as 3rd party adopters? We should  
> definitely be stealing their ideas rather than coming up with our  
> own, but I’m not finding it…
>
>
>
> In any case, I’ve added some notes on a workplan here: http:// 
> openid.net/wiki/index.php/IPR_%26_Process_Work_Plan
>
>
>
>             -Gabe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On  
> Behalf Of Johannes Ernst
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:25 PM
> To: board at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] IPR Policy and Process Proposal
>
>
>
> This is quite complex. Is there a way to simplify and shorten  
> substantially?
>
>
>
> [I just read both policy proposal and process proposal, and in  
> spite of having read previous drafts and having an interest in the  
> subject, I suspect I'd have to spend several more hours to actually  
> understand what all of this means. The problem is not that I need  
> to take the time, but that such a time requirement will act as a  
> rather effective barrier for new people to get involved in OpenID  
> or feeling comfortable about what they are getting themselves into,  
> something I'd like to avoid if can ...]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Johannes Ernst
>
> NetMesh Inc.
>
>
>
>
> <image001.gif>
> <image002.gif>
> http://netmesh.info/jernst
>
>
>
>
> <image001.gif>
> <image002.gif>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board

Johannes Ernst
NetMesh Inc.

 http://netmesh.info/jernst

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20070424/94f855d6/attachment-0003.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: openid-relying-party-authenticated.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 903 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20070424/94f855d6/attachment-0006.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: lid.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 973 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20070424/94f855d6/attachment-0007.gif>