[OpenID] OpenID license

[Nathan]

Chris Messina wrote:
> 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

what about against implementers? (sorry may just be an omission, looking 
to clarify)

> 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.

makes sense on the face of it, and something I don't really want to look 
in to more tbh, just wondered about the licenses on the spec's because I 
couldn't find them.

i.e.

can I (legally) release an OpenID spec implementation under any license 
I want (even cc-zero)

can you guys condense all of the outcome of this in to one little 
snippet and license and stick it on the specs to save everybody else 
going through this same procedure, and/or having to read several 
documents and all the agreements themselves to figure out the true 
picture. Pref using an existing compatible license of course, but 
whatever will do, given the nature of the software industry I'm sure 
some lawyer(s) somewhere will hook up on it and figure out all the 
details + license compatibility issues, given the penetration of OpenID.

>> 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

cheers, do I even want to ask about RAND, the definition of reasonable 
and whether royalties can ever or do come in to this? (!) - I don't but..

>>  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.

Likewise, but good to have transparency as well as openness; let's 
everybody know where they stand - good for you guys too to have the 
trust of the community backed by lawyers saying 'yup it's all good' too 
I guess!

Best & thanks again,

Nathan

ps: longer thread than I'd imagined!