[OpenID] OpenID license

[Chris Messina]

On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Nathan <nathan at webr3.org> wrote:

>
> Okay, think I'm following..
>
> 1: has every contributor to the OpenID specification(s) agreed to the IPR
> agreement and made the conditioned patent promise? (2a or 2b in the
> agreement)
> - if the answer isn't 100% yes where does that leave me?
>

Yes, they have. We're working on making the agreements public again.


>
> 2: why aren't the patents from contributors with Necessary Claims
> disclosed?
>

Because it would put contributors at a disadvantage if they revealed that
they did or didn't have patents. Essentially by claiming to non-assert the
relevant patents, they're saying that if they DO have patents, they won't
enforce them against other contributors. Of course, if one contributor
discloses that it has 100 patents and another contributors discloses that
they have none, from a sheer game theory perspective, obviously the patent
owner has a competitive advantage or potential reason to renege on their
non-assert promise.

By not disclosing patents but making the promise all the same to enjoined
contributors, companies can keep their patent portfolios secret in the event
that they need to use them against external patent trolls.


>
> 3: Is the promise a legally binding assertion that no Necessary Claims of
> these non disclosed patents from contributors can/will be made against me
> (by contributors), or is it just a promise which equates to me saying "I
> promise I won't sue you for replying to this email"
>

I don't know. I'm not sure if this has been tested in court, but it is the
preferred method of essentially creating what I would think a court would
consider as a binding agreement. Again, IANAL, but take a look at this doc
from Microsoft that outlines related thinking:

http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx



>  Why would you want to include a copy of the spec in your software anyway?
>> (Just curious).
>>
>
> Primarily for reference to previous versions or non final standards - may
> not be an issue at all, would just like to know whether one can include a
> copy of the spec or not (with legal notices etc in tact of course).


Sure. I think we wouldn't want to prohibit that, but we'll need to consult
with counsel before making a final decision.


>
>
>  You are free to implement the protocol without receiving a priori
>> permission.
>>
>
> Good to know, more concerned what happens after I implement and possibly
> become reliant on the spec's though ;)


Well, at this point, it'd be you and a LOT of other people, so honestly I
don't see this being an issue.

Chris


-- 
Chris Messina
Open Web Advocate, Google

Personal: http://factoryjoe.com
Follow me on Buzz: http://buzz.google.com/chrismessina
...or Twitter: http://twitter.com/chrismessina

This email is:   [ ] shareable    [X] ask first   [ ] private
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20100721/34a1ef57/attachment.html>