OpenID 2.0 finalization progress

[Brad Fitzpatrick]

I see no need to rush OpenID 2.0 if the parties involved here on this
mailing list can't even commit to not sue each other.  Seems like a
no-brainer to me.

Yes, maybe some third-party has a patent and can assert it later, but
let's at least say amongst ourselves, in the form of an IPR policy,
that we have no patents on this stuff and/or won't assert them against
anybody in the future using them for OpenID.  Or whatever best practices
are for IPR policies.

No need for a lengthy patent search.  We could do that later.  I'm sure
we'll just find a bunch of trivial patents covering all sorts of OpenID
stuff anyway.  But the point is: those all have their own histories of why
they were obtained, their assertion policies, etc.

If OpenID 2.0 is stamped complete without an IPR non-assertion statement
from everybody involved here, I'm going to blog red flags far & wide
because I see no reason this little crew can't get that much together in
time, and quite quickly.

- Brad


On Mon, 22 Oct 2007, Dick Hardt wrote:

>
> On 19-Oct-07, at 10:20 PM, David Recordon wrote:
>
> > Completely agreed with Johannes.  We are very close with the IPR
> > policy/process being in place and assuming all the contributors agree
> > to it, 2.0 can be declared final within 30 days of October 30th as
> > that is the end of the public review period for the policy.  2.0 is
> > really important and has a wide range of contributors, we've all put
> > a lot of effort into this, lets make sure we do this right.
>
> Doing it right would have been to have had a process in place over a
> year ago. A little late to be doing it right now. Now we are having
> to clean up the mess!
>
> >
> > To Kevin's question, the IPR policy does not require a patent search,
> > which as he points out could be a lengthy process.  Rather it
> > requires that all contributors to the specification make a non-
> > assertion statement to ensure that the spec truly is free and not
> > encumbered by any patents.
>
> Just because the contributors all make non-assertion statements does
> not make the spec unencumbered. Non-contributors could have patents
> that are asserted.
>
> While having an IPR policy in place will, provide more certainty
> around the IPR, it will NOT ensure the spec is free.
>
>
> > I spoke with Brad Fitzpatrick (cc'd)
> > tonight about this and he too agrees that 2.0 should not be declared
> > final until it has gone through the IPR review cycle to fully ensure
> > that it is clear from any IPR encumbrances in regards to the
> > contributors.
>
> You forgot to not cc Brad, and I'd prefer to hear from Brad himself
> then have you channel him.
>
> -- Dick
> _______________________________________________
> specs mailing list
> specs at openid.net
> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/specs
>