[OpenID] OpenID license

[John Bradley]

Agreed,   The non-asserts only cover the openID specification.

On the other hand there are other redirect protocols LID, SAML, WS-Fed, OAuth etc.

There may or may not be someone who comes after you if you are infringing.

That is the advantage of sticking to a standard.

John B.
On 2010-07-22, at 8:57 PM, Chris Messina wrote:

> 
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> One final question:
> 
> Supposing someone were to make an authentication protocol, say, usable in the browser.  Not using the OpenID brand, but perhaps sharing some philosophical ideas.  
> 
> If this protocol were released under an open source license, would it be safe from OpenID contributor patents?
> 
> Again, IANAL and this is my interpretation of things, but unless you get a non-assert from the relevant patent holders (of *any* patented authentication protocols) you're on your own.
> 
> That is, if you infringed on patents held by OpenID contributors, it'd be up to you to receive a license (or equal non-assert) for the relevant IP that you've implemented in order to "be safe from OpenID contributor patents". 
> 
> 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/20100722/4d5e5565/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4767 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20100722/4d5e5565/attachment.bin>