[OpenID] OpenID IPR Policy Draft

Fri Dec 8 17:07:49 UTC 2006

List members,

With permission from Lawrence Rosen <http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm>, I'm
copying some of his comments that
he posted to the IETF's IPR Working Group mailing list in the last few days.
I'm
doing so for two reasons:

1. As everybody considers what approach is best with regard to IPR, I think
Mr.
Rosen's views (as far as I'm concerned he has a sterling reputation among
"open"
advocates") are at a minimum worthy of consideration.

2. I've asked Larry to participate in a podcast on this subject and although
he and
I haven't worked out all the details yet he has agreed to participate and
I'd like to
know if anyone on this list might like to participate in the podcast "live"
or submit
questions for me to ask him?

/Start Lawrence Rosen's Comments to IETF-IPR-WG

Far more important is the goal that IETF specifications, even the
"examples," can be implemented with equal rights and conditions in both
proprietary and open source software and documentation.

As you know, I'm a strong supporter of open source. But when it comes to
*open standards*, I believe we have a broader responsibility to be free for
all--without a share-alike license that disadvantages proprietary software.

That is why, for a patent covenant, I support the Microsoft Open
Specification Promise as the clearest expression yet of this principle. IETF
should demand similar covenants today from other patent-owning companies for

free implementation of patented technology in IETF industry standards--in
both open source and proprietary software.

And that is also why, for a copyright grant, I recommend a license such as
AFL 3.0, which grants a license to everyone (for both text and code!)
conditioned only upon fair attribution and the retention of defensive rights
in the event of patent or copyright litigation.

Of course, when someone implements an IETF specification, he or she can
*then* choose to distribute that implementation under a share-alike license.

I'll cheer that decision! I may even recommend, as do Linux standards
organizations and other open source projects, that the GPL-licensed software
become a model implementation against which others are judged. :-) But
that's very different from contaminating IETF specifications with code or
text that some companies can't or won't be able to use.

/End Lawrence Rosen's Comments to IETF-IPR-WG

On 12/8/06, Ben Laurie <benl at google.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/7/06, Gabe Wachob <gabe.wachob at amsoft.net> wrote:
> > Ben-
> >         I'm not sure what you are suggesting is the problem - is this
> just a
> > matter of timing? That is, could we remedy your issue by saying that you
>
> > have to issue the license before a certain event? This language is
> pretty
> > common - I'm not sure what else a policy could say?
> >
> >         Are you suggesting that there is some sort of implied license or
>
> > estoppel that comes into creation by virtue of the policy? I'm not aware
> of
> > any IPR policy in standards bodies that works that way - and I'm not
> sure
> > its really effective from a legal point of view.
> >
> >         As an alternative, when we say "issue a license", perhaps we
> should
> > be saying "a unilateral license or covenant of non-assertion (etc) that
> does
> > not require affirmative action on the part of the licensee" (needs to be
>
> > worded right - but does that capture your intent?)
>
> Yes, that's what I'm after.
>
> > I'd note that the w3c and
> > oasis (rf on limited terms) policies do *not* require patent licensors
> to
> > issue these sort of super-low-friction licenses (though I've personally
> > pushed for it within OASIS).
>
> I know, and it can be a problem.
>
> >
> >         -Gabe
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-bounces at openid.net]
> On
> > > Behalf Of Ben Laurie
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 8:31 AM
> > > To: Recordon, David
> > > Cc: specs at openid.net; general at openid.net
> > > Subject: Re: [OpenID] OpenID IPR Policy Draft
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > A problem with saying "you MUST offer ... a royalty free license" is
> > > that in order to be open-source-friendly the licence has to be
> > > automatic - otherwise potentially each user of the s/w has to jump
> > > through hoops to get the licence.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > --David
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > general mailing list
> > > > general at openid.net
> > > > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > general mailing list
> > > general at openid.net
> > > http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> general mailing list
> general at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-specs/attachments/20061208/c8330cbf/attachment-0002.htm>