[OpenID] Opened IPR Policy Draft
Hallam-Baker, Phillip
pbaker at verisign.com
Tue Dec 12 19:11:37 UTC 2006
The problem is not the people who contribute, it's the ones who never join the group or agree to any license because they never intend to make or sell anything.
Align with the standards bodies, that way we have the option of going to a standards body later.
I have been through the pain here... The concern I have is that we don't end up in the situation that caused one of my standards groups I was trying to form to implode during formation.
I want to standardize the legal part of the process. Mozilla is not a good model, there are ideological commitments there which are not widely appreciated and in certain quarters distinctly unappreciated.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: specs-bounces at openid.net
> [mailto:specs-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf Of David Nicol
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 2:02 PM
> To: James A. Donald
> Cc: specs at openid.net; Martin Atkins; Gavin Baumanis;
> general at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Opened IPR Policy Draft
>
> On 12/12/06, James A. Donald <jamesd at echeque.com> wrote:
> > Changes and enhancements to the openID standard are
> patentable. When
> > the standard was originally proposed, it was far from clear that it
> > would be widely adopted, so it is unlikely that anyone
> patented it in
> > time, so the original standard is safe from IP.
>
> What a headache. Let's get whoever makes the best reference
> implementation to release it MPL. Mozilla PL has viral
> patent grant language in it while explicitly allowing MPLd
> code to be included in "Larger Projects." (not sure about
> the viral nature of the patent grant language; if we want a
> viral patent grant we might have to create the OIDPL or something)
>
>
>
> --
> perl -le'1while(1x++$_)=~/^(11+)\1+$/||print'
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>
>
More information about the specs
mailing list