[OpenID] Proposed IPR Policy and Supporting Process

Recordon, David drecordon at verisign.com
Wed Apr 25 16:37:22 UTC 2007


I mean now I'm cc'ing


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Recordon, David [mailto:drecordon at verisign.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, April 25, 2007 09:36 AM Pacific Standard Time
To:	Gabe Wachob; openid-general
Subject:	Re: [OpenID] Proposed IPR Policy and Supporting Process

Thanks Gabe!

Cc'ing legal@ so that this thread can easily continue over there.  Of you reply, please remove general@ from your message.

--David


 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Gabe Wachob [mailto:gabe.wachob at amsoft.net]
Sent:	Wednesday, April 25, 2007 09:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
To:	'openid-general'
Subject:	[OpenID] Proposed IPR Policy and Supporting Process

There is now a proposal for an IPR policy and a (lightweight) supporting
process for OpenID spec development posted at
http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/Formal_IPR_Policy and
http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/Formal_Process 

 

We've also set up a legal at openid.net email list to discuss these items
(http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/legal to subscribe). We need to point
out that subscription to the legal list by any organization, person, etc
does not imply endorsement, participation, or any form of licensing with
regards to OpenID. This is a zero-commitment list where we can discuss how
IPR-related roadblocks to participation by other parties can be addressed. 

 

We have a goal of having this proposal reviewed by this community and other
(qualified) interested parties within the next few weeks so that we can
announce something by IIW on May 14. That may be wildly optimistic, but
let's try. 

 

We've been motivated to set up a more formal IPR policy to allow parties
like Microsoft and other organizations to contribute and engage the
community while preserving the OpenID development culture and its values
around IPR. It's not a perfect proposal, nor is it complete. 

 

The goals of the IPR policy and supporting process are proposed as:

1.	Produce specifications which are free from patent and copyright
encumbrances. 
2.	Minimize process imposed on participants, i.e., keep as
"lightweight" as possible, especially in terms of executing licenses 
3.	Facilitate free-wheeling, open-ended discussion in the current modes
(a small handful of email lists consisting primarily of individuals who
detest process and who have no IPR to protect). 
4.	Maximize participation from IPR holders who would like to contribute
IPR. 

1.	Make contribution "safe" in terms of being well-scoped and
well-defined. 

5.	Maximize clarity on the IPR encumbrances around specs produced by
the community for the purposes of 3rd parties who may want to adopt the
specifications 

The process I've proposed consists of a two new mechanisms: blanket/specific
licensing participation modes, and "on the table" documents. The basic idea
is that participants either blanket license (those who probably don't care
about protecting their IPR with respect to OpenID - the majority of today's
participants, I believe) and specific licensing (those who need to limit
their commitments for licensing to a specific list of well-defined
documents). Blanket licensers need not do anything other than what they are
doing today (subscribe to the list and participate!). Specific licensers
have more to do to state that they are committing to licensing for only
specific "on the table" documents. 

 

At any given time, there is a list of "on the table" documents to which
specific-licensing participants are expected to commit to licensing.
Documents become "on the table" through a vote of the community.  

 

There are no disclosure requirements, and anybody can withdraw licenses up
and until adoption. There is no "membership" of an organization except email
list subscription. There must be a vote to put a spec "on the table" and
there must be a final adoption vote. There also has to be a freeze period
where specific licensing companies can make a final evaluation about their
licensing commitments. That's pretty much it. We can discuss in more detail
on the legal list, (http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/legal to subscribe).

 

We're trying to do this quickly - I doubt there will be a lack of opinions
on this. It's very easy to be critical, and 10x harder to be constructive. I
just ask that if you have an issue with the proposal that you propose an
alternative that meets the needs of the parties to whom it will apply. That
being said, nothing is strictly off the table at this point.

 

      -Gabe

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20070425/345a426e/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the general mailing list