[OpenID board] [legal] Feedback on latest drafts of OpenID IPR Policy and Process

Thu Nov 29 08:41:56 UTC 2007

+1 to fully decoupling -- that would remove one of the sticky spots to that
paragraph.

And +1 to Martin's other comments being reflected in a final "fit and
finish" draft -- if we can turn that around this week, we should be good for
final final at IIW.

=Drummond 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: board-bounces at openid.net [mailto:board-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
> Of Mike Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:16 PM
> To: Martin Atkins; board at openid.net; legal at openid.net
> Cc: Daggett, David; David Daggett (Preston Gates & Ellis)
> Subject: Re: [OpenID board] [legal] Feedback on latest drafts of OpenID
> IPR Policy and Process
> 
> About the logo question that Martin asked, David Daggett wrote to me
> (which I'm resending with his permission):
> 
> Broadening the statement to "trademarks generally" is non-problematic.  We
> could remove the bulk of the statement, if the group prefers, but we
> should still clarify that "there are no rights to use any logo or
> trademark granted or implied under the IPR Policy or Process Document.
> Any such rights may be set forth in a separate OpenID Trademark License,
> if such license is made available by OIDF, in its sole discretion."
> 
> Fully decoupling these seems like a fine decision to me.
> 
>                                 -- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-bounces at openid.net [mailto:legal-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
> Of Mike Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:54 PM
> To: Martin Atkins; board at openid.net; legal at openid.net
> Cc: David Daggett (Preston Gates & Ellis); Scott Kveton
> Subject: Re: [legal] [OpenID board] Feedback on latest drafts of OpenID
> IPR Policy and Process
> 
> Let me second Martin's statement here:
> * However, to avoid confusion and legal trouble such tools must be
> restricted so that only Contributors of the working group are able to make
> contributions.
> 
> Part of the point is to be able to unambiguously determine what is and is
> not a contribution.  Having the working group being able to choose
> additional collaboration tools, where write access is restricted to
> contributors, would be a great addition to the process.
> 
> For purposes of creating specifications, the specs at openid.net list would
> be replaced by separate specs list for each working group.  It would still
> play the notification role described in the docs.
> 
> Responding to your statement "However, earlier section 3.4 carries the
> implication that the work group may keep its mailing lists, drafts and
> other documents inaccessible to those who are not members of the group."
> I'll point out that 3.8 says "All WG email lists will be archived, and all
> WG email archives will be publicly visible."  In short, only contributors
> can send to the mailing lists but anyone can view the archived copies of
> them.
> 
> I'll ask our legal about your question about the logo.
> 
>                                 Best wishes,
>                                 -- Mike
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-bounces at openid.net [mailto:legal-bounces at openid.net] On Behalf
> Of Martin Atkins
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 1:08 PM
> To: board at openid.net; legal at openid.net
> Subject: Re: [legal] [OpenID board] Feedback on latest drafts of OpenID
> IPR Policy and Process
> 
> Drummond Reed wrote:
> > Per the promise the OpenID Foundation board members made to review the
> > latest drafts of the OpenID IPR docs as quickly as possible, here are my
> > comments on the latest IPR Policy and Process docs.
> >
> 
> Thanks for starting this off, Drummond.
> 
> I have also now reviewed the Policy and Process documents, and I have
> some comments which are included below.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> == Policy Document ==
> 
> I.13. As noted by Drummond, this says "Documents published by OpenID"
> rather than "by the OpenID Foundation", or some other appropriate entity.
> 
> I.14. It is not clear what role the existing specs at openid.net mailing
> list will play under this policy. Per this clause, it is not considered
> to be an official discussion forum for specifications. The process
> document indicates that it will be used for announcements of new work
> groups, but presumably this will not be its only purpose. (If it *is*
> its only purpose, then presumably posting access will be restricted to
> avoid confusion.)
> 
> Also, I agree with Drummond that wikis are a valuable collaboration tool
> when authoring specifications. I have mixed feelings about how best to
> codify this in the policy, though. It seems to me that:
> 
>   * A work group should be able to itself select appropriate
> collaboration tools, just as it given the freedom to arrange its own
> meetings. (Wikis and web-based forum tools spring to mind immediately,
> but other tools may become useful in future.)
> 
>   * However, to avoid confusion and legal trouble such tools must be
> restricted so that only Contributors of the working group are able to
> make contributions.
> 
>   * The mailing list provided by the foundation and hosted on openid.net
> should remain the primary communication medium due to the fact that it
> is archived and made public by the foundation itself. So-called "Core
> Decisions" should always be either made directly via the mailing list or
> notice of such decisions posted on the mailing list (for example, in the
> form of meeting minutes) to ensure a complete public record.
> 
> == Process Document ==
> 
> General note: I'm not clear on the role of the Specifications Council in
> the specification approval process. Section 4 describes the obligations
> of the work group and, where appropriate, its editors. Section 5
> describes the involvement of the board. Does the Specifications Council
> not get a say in whether a Final Specification or Implementors Draft is
> approved? If not, I feel that this should be made more explicit, either
> way.
> 
> 2. Editorial: can this perhaps be rephrased so that it doesn't have
> nested parentheses? I think it makes that portion of the paragraph
> rather hard to follow; I had to read it more than once before I was
> certain I had read it correctly. At minimum, I'd suggest using em-dashes
> for the inner parenthetical phrase.
> 
> 3.1. Nit-picking, perhaps: The term "plain text electronic form" is
> used. Is this intended to mean literally a "text file" (in some
> reasonable character encoding), or could this (for example) be an HTML
> document or other such "text-based" format?
> 
> 3.1(a)(iii). regarding "the purpose of the OpenID community": does the
> community itself actually have a defined purpose? Would it not be better
> to use "the purpose of the OpenID Foundation" here? (Given that the work
> groups are run under the perview of said foundation.)
> 
> 3.1(a)(vii) It seems that the result of this requirement could form the
> basis of documenting what are considered the group's official
> collaboration tools for I.14 of the policy document.
> 
> 3.8. This section creates several obligations for openness of a work
> group, which I would consider a good thing. However, earlier section 3.4
> carries the implication that the work group may keep its mailing lists,
> drafts and other documents inaccessible to those who are not members of
> the group. This seems a little inconsistent.
> 
> 3.11. One sentence ends "as long as the vote otherwise complies with
> Error! Reference source not found."
> 
> 5.3. This specifically refers to a "logo" and a "logo licence". Would it
> not be better to be more general here to allow for trademarked words
> such as "OpenID" and other devices which may be appropriate to a
> particular specification? This also seems like an odd place to include
> such a rule: wouldn't this be more at home in the trademark policy?
> 
> == Rationale Document ==
> 
> Another nit-pick perhaps, but the document does not seem to have its
> publication date actually included in the text, which makes the use of
> time-sensitive language like "now" and "already" (particularly in
> section 2) quite ambiguous.
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list
> legal at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/legal
> _______________________________________________
> legal mailing list
> legal at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/legal
> _______________________________________________
> board mailing list
> board at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/board