[OpenID] OpenID license

[Nathan]

Chris Messina wrote:
> Hopefully this'll be the last on this topic. ;)

hoping the same, almost ;)

> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Nathan <nathan at webr3.org> wrote:
> 
>>>  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)
> 
> 
> Because an implementor could be a patent troll and implementors aren't
> required to non-assert.
> 
> Simple as that.
> 
> Keep in mind we're talking about intellectual property. When you implement a
> spec, you're implementing someone else's invention. When it's a "standard",
> it was probably created by a consortia of companies that all have patents.
> What's important is that the creators of the spec don't create an encumbered
> spec and implementors are free to implement the technology (presuming that
> they don't implement the spec and then sue the creators of the spec).
> 
> Essentially the non-asserts are about protecting the creators of the
> technology, and less about protecting the implementors. It's up to each
> implementor to assess the legal situation with their own counsel (if it's
> important to them) before writing a line of code. The contributors obviously
> can't do that for you, they can only assess their own legal situation and
> act according to their interests.

well I can't afford to do that, nor do I have the time so doesn't really 
leave me much choice I guess :(

> can I (legally) release an OpenID spec implementation under any license I
>> want (even cc-zero)
>>
> 
> Not today. Depends on the copyright license that applies. The default is all
> rights reserved, so until we specify otherwise, that's the doctrine that
> applies.

okay, assuming that Apache License V2.0 is compatible given that janrain 
openid implementations are released under it, any word on CC 
Attribution-ShareAlike (for an implementation).

actually a list of (in)+compatible licenses would be good.. (FAQ on the 
site too maybe..)

>> 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.
> 
> 
> Ideally, yes, that should be the outcome here.

hope so, guess that'll be the last on the topic :)

Best,

Nathan