OpenID IPR Policy Draft

[Brett McDowell]

As Gabe points out, such a strawman approach to settling the IPR policy
issue might not be in keeping with the spirit of this development process.
But, other than that, I think Phillip's suggestion is a good one.  I'm not
familiar enough with the spirit of this development process to weigh in on
whether such a suggestion is appropriate or not.

--Brett

P.S.
For what its worth, the W3C IPR Policy is very similar to the Liberty
Alliance and OASIS IPR policies.


On 12/7/06, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker at verisign.com> wrote:
>
>  Why not just take the W3C IPR policy verbatim and change the organization
> name?
>
> The W3C patent policy is I believe released under creative commons for
> precisely this reason if not this can easily happen. The agreement was
> subscribed to by all the major vendors and the major open source groups.
>
> Unless someone wants to incorporate proprietary technology that they are
> not willing to release the rights to as required by the W3C terms this is a
> debate we don't need to have.
>
>
> Ideally the Apache, Mozilla, OASIS, W3C and IETF IPR WGs would get
> together and devise an industry standard acceptable to both Open Source and
> proprietary vendors. The introduction of suspense licenses means that it is
> not unthinkable that they would reach a common set of terms.
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Gabe Wachob
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 07, 2006 1:01 PM
> *To:* 'Brett McDowell'; Recordon, David
> *Cc:* specs at openid.net; general at openid.net
> *Subject:* RE: OpenID IPR Policy Draft
>
>  Brett-
>
>             We need to get consensus on what the community wants before we
> take this to an attorney.. However, I've done these sorts of IPR policies
> for standards efforts several times and I can tell you that the process of
> working through these IPR policies is slow, painful and expensive. I think
> presenting an "already baked" (ie already drafted by lawyers) IPR policy to
> this community and asking for a up/down vote is not in keeping with the
> spirit of this development process.
>
>             -Gabe
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* specs-bounces at openid.net [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] *On
> Behalf Of *Brett McDowell
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 07, 2006 6:48 AM
> *To:* Recordon, David
> *Cc:* specs at openid.net; general at openid.net
> *Subject:* Re: OpenID IPR Policy Draft
>
>
>
> This is normally lawyer work.  I recommend the companies & individuals
> invested in OpenID immediately turn this exercise over to your legal counsel
> to ensure your interests--and the interests of the community--are protected
> appropriately.
>
> Does the new OpenID organization have legal counsel retained (I don't mean
> volunteers, but actually hired)?  If not, that would be my second
> recommendation.
>
> --Brett
>
> On 12/6/06, *Recordon, David* <drecordon at verisign.com> wrote:
>
> Hey guys,
> Been working with Gabe, and others, on starting to draft an IPR Policy
> for OpenID specifications.  We'd appreciate feedback in terms of if what
> is written captures the correct intent of the community?  We realize the
> language isn't technically as tight as it needs to be, though first want
> to make sure it is saying the right thing.  It is largely based on the
> IPR Policy for Microformats.
>
> http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/IPR_Policy
>
> Thanks,
> --David
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>
>
>
>
> --
> Brett McDowell +1.413.662.2744
>
>


-- 
Brett McDowell +1.413.662.2744
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20061211/42f6dc56/attachment-0002.htm>