OpenID 2.0 finalization progress

Dick Hardt dick at sxip.com
Thu Oct 25 06:46:16 UTC 2007


I don't see anyone not ready to make non-assertion statements about  
the specs.
I have stated that Sxip would make non-assertions on OpenID  
Authentication 2.0 and OpenID Attribute Exchange once they are BOTH  
proposed to be Final.

Creating a complete IPR process going forward is what is also being  
proposed. Essentially the OpenID Foundation is becoming a standards  
body. This is a significant shift in the OpenID Foundation Charter,  
as the charter explicitly states that creating specifications is out  
of scope of the Foundation. This change is NOT something that can be  
done quickly.

(have you looked over the IPR Process and Policy documents Brad?)

-- Dick

On 23-Oct-07, at 11:50 AM, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:

> I see no need to rush OpenID 2.0 if the parties involved here on this
> mailing list can't even commit to not sue each other.  Seems like a
> no-brainer to me.
>
> Yes, maybe some third-party has a patent and can assert it later, but
> let's at least say amongst ourselves, in the form of an IPR policy,
> that we have no patents on this stuff and/or won't assert them against
> anybody in the future using them for OpenID.  Or whatever best  
> practices
> are for IPR policies.
>
> No need for a lengthy patent search.  We could do that later.  I'm  
> sure
> we'll just find a bunch of trivial patents covering all sorts of  
> OpenID
> stuff anyway.  But the point is: those all have their own histories  
> of why
> they were obtained, their assertion policies, etc.
>
> If OpenID 2.0 is stamped complete without an IPR non-assertion  
> statement
> from everybody involved here, I'm going to blog red flags far & wide
> because I see no reason this little crew can't get that much  
> together in
> time, and quite quickly.
>
> - Brad
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Dick Hardt wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19-Oct-07, at 10:20 PM, David Recordon wrote:
>>
>>> Completely agreed with Johannes.  We are very close with the IPR
>>> policy/process being in place and assuming all the contributors  
>>> agree
>>> to it, 2.0 can be declared final within 30 days of October 30th as
>>> that is the end of the public review period for the policy.  2.0 is
>>> really important and has a wide range of contributors, we've all put
>>> a lot of effort into this, lets make sure we do this right.
>>
>> Doing it right would have been to have had a process in place over a
>> year ago. A little late to be doing it right now. Now we are having
>> to clean up the mess!
>>
>>>
>>> To Kevin's question, the IPR policy does not require a patent  
>>> search,
>>> which as he points out could be a lengthy process.  Rather it
>>> requires that all contributors to the specification make a non-
>>> assertion statement to ensure that the spec truly is free and not
>>> encumbered by any patents.
>>
>> Just because the contributors all make non-assertion statements does
>> not make the spec unencumbered. Non-contributors could have patents
>> that are asserted.
>>
>> While having an IPR policy in place will, provide more certainty
>> around the IPR, it will NOT ensure the spec is free.
>>
>>
>>> I spoke with Brad Fitzpatrick (cc'd)
>>> tonight about this and he too agrees that 2.0 should not be declared
>>> final until it has gone through the IPR review cycle to fully ensure
>>> that it is clear from any IPR encumbrances in regards to the
>>> contributors.
>>
>> You forgot to not cc Brad, and I'd prefer to hear from Brad himself
>> then have you channel him.
>>
>> -- Dick
>> _______________________________________________
>> specs mailing list
>> specs at openid.net
>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>>
>
>




More information about the specs mailing list