[OpenID] Shade's questions - Privacy for Foundation members

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

You still did not answer my question.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Williams [mailto:pwilliams at rapattoni.com]
> Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 9:38 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav; SitG Admin; general at openid.net
> Subject: RE: [OpenID] Shade's questions - Privacy for Foundation
> members
>
> Fair enough, Eran.
>
> But never forget VeriSign (a central player in the early OpenID
> movement) was created based on the systematic application of the power
> of just one patent. The whole of silicon valley was structured to be a
> market for RSA ciphers and security protocols, but none of those same
> 3000+ licensees got the ability to make (RSA-signed) certs or be a CA.
> Certs were put everywhere (ISO,IETF,Web) in standards, meantime -
> entirely on their own merit (mostly). As the non-US world was RSA
> patent free, certs were not properly considered proprietary (and in
> case, you are not forced to use RSA to sign them; which NSA spent a lot
> of time proving!).
>
> Now, that was all entirely legitimate in my view - as was 100%
> transparently done (this was condition of my own involvement); and
> there was real choice as proven by the Java community initially
> adopting of non RSA certs. Being transparent, the whining level of the
> chatting classes was VERY VERY high (and the invective highly personal
> and often humiliating); the whole process exasperated a lot of people.
> But at least there was nothing hidden!
>
> So, which reality do you prefer: transparent or submarine? Do you want
> to read the claims, or have some hint=hint that you'd "best" sign a
> covenant, ...since the party implies it has IP claims that it won't
> reveal to you, patent applications it won't disclose, and won't even
> formally disclaim that its own contributions to openid fall within the
> scope of its current or applied-for claims?
>
> Such is the nature of OpenID and patents. Don't be disingenuous about
> what's going on!  But don't feel it's a giant conspiracy either: it's
> just how value is created in G7 service economies, with a lot of middle
> class salaries to pay.
>
> While there is relative peace in patent land, we can make technical
> progress, and retain focus on the future buyers needs.
>
> OpenID Community CLEARLY shows it is (somehow, incredibly) capable of
> holding a consensus in this morass of issues. And that's one reason I
> back it; as these "other" matters are as critical for adoption as is
> the engineering.
>
> Now, Who was it who recently called for non-software engineers and
> protocol designers to join the (community) Board, and round out its
> portfolio of skills - in assurance, governance, and law?
>
> Whoever it was, I agree with him/her. Members! Just a Few days left to
> vote!
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eran Hammer-Lahav [mailto:eran at hueniverse.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:52 AM
> > To: Peter Williams; SitG Admin; general at openid.net
> > Subject: RE: [OpenID] Shade's questions - Privacy for Foundation
> > members
> >
> > I don't share any of your cynicism regarding standards work. Yes,
> there
> > are many cases where it is driven by nothing more than the desire to
> > dominate a market by some players, but there are many (many) examples
> > where it was really about advancing the general state of technology.
> >
> > > From: Peter Williams [mailto:pwilliams at rapattoni.com]
> > > Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 6:10 AM
> > >
> > > I cannot join (and happily give my $100) because of the IP rules
> (on
> > > members no less, vs IP contributors). So I do it indirectly but
> > within
> > > the rules here, arguably in a useful manner.
> >
> > First, it is $25. Second, what specific IP rules prevent you from
> > joining? My personal issues with the OpenID foundation IPR policy are
> > that it doesn't secure more rights for the community, which means it
> > will take more power away from those who participate in creating
> > specifications. But it sounds like you feel the current policy has
> > already gone too far. I would be interested to learn what exactly is
> > your issue (please quote specific language from the IPR policy).
> >
> > EHL