<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Re: [OpenID] Proposed IPR Policy and Supporting Process</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>I mean now I'm cc'ing<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Recordon, David [<A HREF="mailto:drecordon@verisign.com">mailto:drecordon@verisign.com</A>]<BR>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 09:36 AM Pacific Standard Time<BR>
To: Gabe Wachob; openid-general<BR>
Subject: Re: [OpenID] Proposed IPR Policy and Supporting Process<BR>
<BR>
Thanks Gabe!<BR>
<BR>
Cc'ing legal@ so that this thread can easily continue over there. Of you reply, please remove general@ from your message.<BR>
<BR>
--David<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: Gabe Wachob [<A HREF="mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net">mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net</A>]<BR>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 09:30 AM Pacific Standard Time<BR>
To: 'openid-general'<BR>
Subject: [OpenID] Proposed IPR Policy and Supporting Process<BR>
<BR>
There is now a proposal for an IPR policy and a (lightweight) supporting<BR>
process for OpenID spec development posted at<BR>
<A HREF="http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/Formal_IPR_Policy">http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/Formal_IPR_Policy</A> and<BR>
<A HREF="http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/Formal_Process">http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/Formal_Process</A><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
We've also set up a legal@openid.net email list to discuss these items<BR>
(<A HREF="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/legal">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/legal</A> to subscribe). We need to point<BR>
out that subscription to the legal list by any organization, person, etc<BR>
does not imply endorsement, participation, or any form of licensing with<BR>
regards to OpenID. This is a zero-commitment list where we can discuss how<BR>
IPR-related roadblocks to participation by other parties can be addressed.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
We have a goal of having this proposal reviewed by this community and other<BR>
(qualified) interested parties within the next few weeks so that we can<BR>
announce something by IIW on May 14. That may be wildly optimistic, but<BR>
let's try.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
We've been motivated to set up a more formal IPR policy to allow parties<BR>
like Microsoft and other organizations to contribute and engage the<BR>
community while preserving the OpenID development culture and its values<BR>
around IPR. It's not a perfect proposal, nor is it complete.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
The goals of the IPR policy and supporting process are proposed as:<BR>
<BR>
1. Produce specifications which are free from patent and copyright<BR>
encumbrances.<BR>
2. Minimize process imposed on participants, i.e., keep as<BR>
"lightweight" as possible, especially in terms of executing licenses<BR>
3. Facilitate free-wheeling, open-ended discussion in the current modes<BR>
(a small handful of email lists consisting primarily of individuals who<BR>
detest process and who have no IPR to protect).<BR>
4. Maximize participation from IPR holders who would like to contribute<BR>
IPR.<BR>
<BR>
1. Make contribution "safe" in terms of being well-scoped and<BR>
well-defined.<BR>
<BR>
5. Maximize clarity on the IPR encumbrances around specs produced by<BR>
the community for the purposes of 3rd parties who may want to adopt the<BR>
specifications<BR>
<BR>
The process I've proposed consists of a two new mechanisms: blanket/specific<BR>
licensing participation modes, and "on the table" documents. The basic idea<BR>
is that participants either blanket license (those who probably don't care<BR>
about protecting their IPR with respect to OpenID - the majority of today's<BR>
participants, I believe) and specific licensing (those who need to limit<BR>
their commitments for licensing to a specific list of well-defined<BR>
documents). Blanket licensers need not do anything other than what they are<BR>
doing today (subscribe to the list and participate!). Specific licensers<BR>
have more to do to state that they are committing to licensing for only<BR>
specific "on the table" documents.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
At any given time, there is a list of "on the table" documents to which<BR>
specific-licensing participants are expected to commit to licensing.<BR>
Documents become "on the table" through a vote of the community. <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
There are no disclosure requirements, and anybody can withdraw licenses up<BR>
and until adoption. There is no "membership" of an organization except email<BR>
list subscription. There must be a vote to put a spec "on the table" and<BR>
there must be a final adoption vote. There also has to be a freeze period<BR>
where specific licensing companies can make a final evaluation about their<BR>
licensing commitments. That's pretty much it. We can discuss in more detail<BR>
on the legal list, (<A HREF="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/legal">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/legal</A> to subscribe).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
We're trying to do this quickly - I doubt there will be a lack of opinions<BR>
on this. It's very easy to be critical, and 10x harder to be constructive. I<BR>
just ask that if you have an issue with the proposal that you propose an<BR>
alternative that meets the needs of the parties to whom it will apply. That<BR>
being said, nothing is strictly off the table at this point.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-Gabe<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>