[OpenID board] IPR Policy and Process Proposal

[Dick Hardt]

I have concerns with both documents:

Formal IPR Policy:
http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/Formal_IPR_Policy

Blanket Reciprocity term -- Sxip has significant Patents in this  
space and just giving all those patents that are not needed for  
implementing OpenID to any Contributor is a challenging issue for us  
and I would imagine a non-starter for large organizations. Perhaps I  
am missing something about the intent of this term

Formal Process:
http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/Formal_Process

This is looking like the basis for a standards body now. I thought we  
had decided that we would move the specifications to a standards body  
so that we did not have to reinvent the wheel? Voting, membership,  
governance are big issues that are not defined in this  document --  
so even though it looks complex now, wait until those issues are  
dealt with!

On 23-Apr-07, at 9:08 PM, Gabe Wachob wrote:

> There’s now a “there” there.
>
>
>
> Thanks to some prodding from Mike Jones, we had a spurt of activity  
> this weekend (some of you have been cc’d on emails, some of you are  
> blissfully ignorant).
>
>
> The result is the following:
>
>
>
> 1)       Everyone (including esp Microsoft) would like to be able  
> to close this IPR policy by IIW – that’s aggressive, but everyone  
> seems aligned
>
> 2)       There’s a relatively concrete proposal for an IPR policy  
> and lightweight process to enable that policy at http://openid.net/ 
> wiki/index.php/Formal_IPR_Policy and  http://openid.net/wiki/ 
> index.php/Formal_Process  respectively
>
> 3)       I’m sure there will be some pushback as this is no small  
> feat getting grassroots and big organizations to play in the same  
> IPR sandbox. On the other hand, the IPR policy proposed by MS  
> functionally equivalent in most of the big ways to the OSP, so  
> things may go smoothly. There are outstanding questions, etc from  
> Johannes and myself – however, I don’t consider my pushback to be  
> all that critical and certainly not worth holding up the process.
>
> 4)       There’s been agreement among several of us to set up  
> legal at openid.net – if someone opposes this (yet another list),   
> please speak up. However, I think this is a truly distinct topic  
> that is not going to attract the broad-base of interest that issues  
> like security might have. In any case, we obviously need to move  
> this discussion to the community.
>
> 5)       We need to do some outreach to get some legal (and  
> related) advice and input from other large organizations who are  
> most interested in the IPR policy – I think between the board here  
> we know all the relevant lawyers and opinionated people out there.  
> My connections are with EFF and Berkeley people, and some open  
> source folks…
>
> 6)       I will also post to the wiki a proposed plan for moving  
> this forward very quickly.
>
> 7)       Did I mention already we want to get this done by IIW? ;-)
>
>
>
> -Gabe
>
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-board/attachments/20070425/2aa95f7b/attachment-0003.htm>