[legal] Comments on copyright license in the proposed IPR policy
Gabe Wachob
gabe.wachob at amsoft.net
Fri Apr 27 19:59:21 UTC 2007
I was thinking of folks like 3rd parties who are commenting on the protocol,
or proposing improvements, without actually being implementers - the
question is whether they need a license to do this. In addition, people like
my former employer (Visa) who aren't actually writing code, but are
interested in developing technical specifications for 3rd parties to
implement.
I do think that "Implementers" seems like a rather narrow category of users
of the spec - again, though its not clear what sort of specific license is
needed for other parties.
I rather like the idea of one of the Creative Commons copyright licenses
because it expresses the intent directly and we don't have to dicker with
details.
The Attribution-NonCommercial, seems is best appropriate, probably also with
ShareAlike. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ or
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ )
-Gabe
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Wahl [mailto:Mark.Wahl at informed-control.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:45 PM
> To: Gabe Wachob; 'Simon Josefsson'
> Cc: legal at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [legal] Comments on copyright license in the proposed IPR
> policy
>
> Gabe Wachob wrote:
>
> > If others share Simon's concerns, please say so here.
>
> Mr. Josefsson wrote:
>
> >>The copyright license says:
> >>
> >> "Copyright License. Some Contributions are not subject to
> >> copyright. However, to the extent a Contribution is or may be
> subject
> >> to copyright, the Contributor hereby agrees to grant a perpetual,
> >> non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide copyright license to OpenID,
> >> to other Contributors, and to Implementers, to reproduce, prepare
> >> derivative works from, distribute, perform and display the
> >> Contribution and derivative works thereof solely for the development
> >> and implementation of OpenID Specifications."
> >>
> >> This do not grant a copyright license to third parties. Is that the
> >> intention?
>
> A third party that is not an "Implementer"? Would not a free software
> developer that implements OpenID specifications be an Implementer?
> Implementors are granted the rights in the copyright license above.
>
> A party who it appears would not be granted a right by this license
> would be, for example, someone who wishes to publish the
> "Big Book of OpenID Specifications" but who is not a contributor or an
> implementor.
>
> Mark Wahl
> Informed Control Inc.
More information about the legal
mailing list