[OpenID board] IPR progress and strategy?

Recordon, David drecordon at verisign.com
Fri May 18 19:54:51 UTC 2007

I would have to agree.  I think our top priority is cleaning up:
 - OpenID Authentication 1.1
 - OpenID Simple Registration 1.0
 - Yadis 1.0

Once Auth 2.0 is finalized then another round of non-asserts for it.

At the same time we need to continue exploring the option Gabe talked
about for an IPR policy/process and compare that to either IETF or
OASIS.  In either case, I think it will be a multi-month process to
either move to a standards body or generate our own policy.


-----Original Message-----
From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On
Behalf Of Johannes Ernst
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 11:54 AM
To: board at openid.net
Subject: Re: [OpenID board] IPR progress and strategy?

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.

More information about the board mailing list