[OpenID] OpenID license

[David Recordon]

Inline...

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Nathan <nathan at webr3.org> wrote:

> To summarise then (with regards OpenID/OIDF specifications):
>
> All contributors have signed patent non assert agreements
>

Yes.


The signed agreements can (not) be found here http://openid.net/ipr/


This directory listing works again. It contains the non-asserts for OpenID
2.0 from those contributors. It doesn't look like the contribution
agreements from PAPE are currently listed online, but every contirbutor
signed one (and they should be put online).


No patents from contributors covering OpenID specifications are disclosed.
>
> The non assert agreements protect contributors from each other (to an
> extent), they do not protect implementers.
>

Incorrect. The non-asserts cover implementors as well.


As far as you know the OpenID specs are not patent encumbered, but you
> advise implementers to access the legal situation with their legal council
> before writing a line of code, and if worried to go and license the relevant
> patent(s) or get patent non asserts.
>

As is true for implementing any specification you find on the web.


The patent(s) may cover parts of other existing or future protocol
> specifications from non associated third parties, and of course the
> implementations of those.
>
> The copyright on OpenID specifications mean they cannot be released under
> CC-zero licenses (or similar), the licenses which are compatible are
> unknown, Janrain has opted for Apache V2 but may still be infringing on
> patents (as all implementations may be).
>

These issues are orthogonal. The contribution agreements include a copyright
license which allows the Foundation to distribute the specifications. We did
not choose to adopt a CC license as the included copyright license can be
shorter.

Implementations, such as JanRain, can choose their own licensing terms for
their implementations. This is completely separate from the licensing of the
specifications.


The 'OIDF hereby disclaims any responsibility for identifying the existence,
> or for evaluating the applicability, of any patents, patent applications, or
> other rights (including copyrights) claimed to be applicable to any
> Specification and will take no position on the validity or scope of any such
> rights.'
>
> The general advice is that because of the legal costs of a patent
> infringement case it's likely that anybody implementing will be infringing
> patents (if there are any, but they aren't disclosed) but they most likely
> won't be sued because of the costs involved.
>
> So, do I take it that I should just get on and implement the
> specifications, go for a license which keeps all rights reserved to the OIDF
> and hope for the best; ignore the patent matter, and if manages to get a
> business to the value where patent infringements would be worth going after
> seek legal council and worry about it then.
>

I'm not a lawyer, can't given you legal advice, and don't understand your
business. That said, hundreds of people and companies have implemented
OpenID around the world.


Am I correct?
>
> Best,
>
> Nathan
>
>
> Chris Messina wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Nathan <nathan at webr3.org> wrote:
>>
>>  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 :(
>>>
>>
>>
>> Most people can't afford this (including me, personally) and implement
>> anyway.
>>
>> It's up to you, as I said, to determine your risk and proceed accordingly.
>>
>> If you can't or won't implement OpenID because you're concerned about
>> being
>> sued for patent infringement, consider how much patent litigation costs
>> and
>> then weigh that against the likelihood that anyone would really go after
>> anyone worth less than 10s of millions of dollars for patent infringement.
>>
>> Hell, if anyone is really worried about your implementation, you can
>> always
>> go license the relevant patent(s).
>>
>>
>>  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).
>>>
>>>
>> Copyright license on code is separate from patent licenses. Janrain
>> libraries could still infringe patents, but you could at least create
>> derivative works or fork the libraries thanks to the copyright license.
>>
>> Just remember to keep those issues separate.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20100723/1ce1b989/attachment.html>