[OpenID board] IPR progress and strategy?

Johannes Ernst jernst at netmesh.us
Fri May 18 18:53:58 UTC 2007

Thanks for the update.

I would recommend that we keep "what's currently deployed broadly"  
separate from "specs we are still finalizing and/or are not deployed  
broadly yet". We don't want anybody who might object to something  
that's in the 2.0 spec not sign the policy for what's deployed already.

In other words: Keep it as simple as possible to get maximum initial  

My priorities:
  - codify current practice of what's deployed already
  - take a big breath
  - extend this to ongoing work and new specs

This appears to me the path of least resistance -- and it is already  
partially in place due to Sun's statement and our board decision to  
require at least Open Specification Promise from all contributors  
back in February.

On May 18, 2007, at 11:36, Gabe Wachob wrote:

> [Just FYI, Bill Washburn is really helping to coordinate and is up- 
> to-date
> on activities.]
> The update is that, unfortunately, things are not getting much  
> clearer.
> We've had initial input from IBM, Microsoft, Symantec, Yahoo, and  
> Sun. There
> seems to be some big gaps on consensus to the Microsoft-proposed  
> IPR policy
> - world view gaps between "disclose and obligate" process and a
> "non-assert-covenant with right to withdraw until final vote" process.
> Microsoft's IPR policy is really based on the "non-assert" world view.
> The current thinking between Bill, David and myself is the  
> following, though
> this is subject, of course, to change:
> 1) We go back and clear up the IPR issues (copyright and patent)  
> for OpenID
> 1.1 (and related specs) through asking for copyright grants and/or CC
> licenses and patent non-assert covenants from a broad swath of OpenID
> contributors - we can/should do this now, although, as Dick points  
> out, it
> may not make sense to ask for this if we are also going to do #2  
> (on openid
> 2.0) very soon
> 2) We do the same thing for OpenID 2.0 when it is completed.
> 3) OPTION A We take OpenID to a standards body like IETF or OASIS.  
> David and
> I had a short discussion with Lisa Dusseault (and her infant son!)  
> about the
> IETF path. We've also discussed how to possibly address the  
> membership cost
> issue in OASIS if we were to go that path (ie through the  
> sponsorship of
> contributors possibly by OIDF or other contributors).
> 3) OPTION B We somehow construct an IPR policy around non-assert  
> covenants
> and those parties who aren't willing to play don't get to  
> contribute (but
> presumably they'd still be able to adopt).
> David proposed a meeting among a certain group of large interested  
> parties
> and their legal counsel to discuss if there might be some consensus  
> on Step
> 3 (with a hope that somehow OPTION B could result). David, I expect  
> you are
> going to drive this.
> I have some feedback that was shared with me directly from the  
> parties we
> contacted. IN at least one case, I was asked to keep the feedback  
> private to
> the board (meaning, I can't post it to an archived email list). I  
> would like
> guidance on how to proceed with that - Bill?
> 	-Gabe
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dick Hardt [mailto:dick at sxip.com]
>> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:02 AM
>> To: board at openid.net; Gabe Wachob
>> Subject: IPR progress and strategy?
>> Gabe / David
>> Would the two of you please report back on where we are in resolving
>> the IPR? I was in some conversations, but the two of  you were in
>> additional conversations, and it would be useful for the rest of the
>> board to know where we are.
>> I bring this up as IPS is the most significant hurdle for OpenID at
>> the moment. We have had it on the agenda for the since last fall, and
>> it is just getting messier with time.
>> -- Dick
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board

Johannes Ernst
NetMesh Inc.

-------------- 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/20070518/f1c44df0/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/20070518/f1c44df0/attachment-0007.gif>
-------------- next part --------------

More information about the board mailing list