List members,<br><br>With permission from <a href="http://www.rosenlaw.com/rosen.htm">Lawrence Rosen</a>, I'm copying some of his comments that<br>he posted to the IETF's IPR Working Group mailing list in the last few days. I'm
<br>doing so for two reasons:<br><br>1. As everybody considers what approach is best with regard to IPR, I think Mr.
<br>Rosen's views (as far as I'm concerned he has a sterling reputation among "open"<br>advocates") are at a minimum worthy of consideration.<br><br>2. I've asked Larry to participate in a podcast on this subject and although he and
<br>I haven't worked out all the details yet he has agreed to participate and I'd like to <br>know if anyone on this list might like to participate in the podcast "live" or submit <br>questions for me to ask him?
<br><br>/Start Lawrence Rosen's Comments to IETF-IPR-WG
<br><br><div style="direction: ltr;">Far more important is the goal that IETF specifications, even the<br>"examples," can be implemented with equal rights and conditions in both<br>proprietary and open source software and documentation.
<br><br>As you know, I'm a strong supporter of open source. But when it comes to<br>*open standards*, I believe we have a broader responsibility to be free for<br>all--without a share-alike license that disadvantages proprietary software.
<br><br>That is why, for a patent covenant, I support the Microsoft Open<br>Specification Promise as the clearest expression yet of this principle. IETF<br>should demand similar covenants today from other patent-owning companies for
<br>free implementation of patented technology in IETF industry standards--in<br>both open source and proprietary software.<br><br>And that is also why, for a copyright grant, I recommend a license such as<br>AFL 3.0, which grants a license to everyone (for both text and code!)
<br>conditioned only upon fair attribution and the retention of defensive rights<br>in the event of patent or copyright litigation.<br><br>Of course, when someone implements an IETF specification, he or she can<br>*then* choose to distribute that implementation under a share-alike license.
<br>I'll cheer that decision! I may even recommend, as do Linux standards<br>organizations and other open source projects, that the GPL-licensed software<br>become a model implementation against which others are judged. :-) But
<br>that's very different from contaminating IETF specifications with code or<br>text that some companies can't or won't be able to use.<br><br>/End Lawrence Rosen's Comments to IETF-IPR-WG<br></div><span><br></span>
<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/8/06,
<b class="gmail_sendername">Ben Laurie</b> <<a href="mailto:benl@google.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">benl@google.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On 12/7/06, Gabe Wachob <<a href="mailto:gabe.wachob@amsoft.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">gabe.wachob@amsoft.net</a>> wrote:<br>> Ben-<br>> I'm not sure what you are suggesting is the problem - is this just a
<br>> matter of timing? That is, could we remedy your issue by saying that you
<br>> have to issue the license before a certain event? This language is pretty<br>> common - I'm not sure what else a policy could say?<br>><br>> Are you suggesting that there is some sort of implied license or
<br>> estoppel that comes into creation by virtue of the policy? I'm not aware of<br>> any IPR policy in standards bodies that works that way - and I'm not sure<br>> its really effective from a legal point of view.
<br>><br>> As an alternative, when we say "issue a license", perhaps we should<br>> be saying "a unilateral license or covenant of non-assertion (etc) that does<br>> not require affirmative action on the part of the licensee" (needs to be
<br>> worded right - but does that capture your intent?)<br><br>Yes, that's what I'm after.<br><br>> I'd note that the w3c and<br>> oasis (rf on limited terms) policies do *not* require patent licensors to<br>> issue these sort of super-low-friction licenses (though I've personally
<br>> pushed for it within OASIS).<br><br>I know, and it can be a problem.<br><br>><br>> -Gabe<br>><br>> > -----Original Message-----<br>> > From: <a href="mailto:general-bounces@openid.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
general-bounces@openid.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:general-bounces@openid.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">general-bounces@openid.net</a>] On<br>> > Behalf Of Ben Laurie
<br>> > Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2006 8:31 AM<br>> > To: Recordon, David
<br>> > Cc: <a href="mailto:specs@openid.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">specs@openid.net</a>; <a href="mailto:general@openid.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
general@openid.net</a><br>> > Subject: Re: [OpenID] OpenID IPR Policy Draft<br>> ><br>> > On 12/6/06, Recordon, David <
<a href="mailto:drecordon@verisign.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">drecordon@verisign.com</a>> wrote:<br>> > > Hey guys,<br>> > > Been working with Gabe, and others, on starting to draft an IPR Policy
<br>> > > for OpenID specifications. We'd appreciate feedback in terms of if what
<br>> > > is written captures the correct intent of the community? We realize the<br>> > > language isn't technically as tight as it needs to be, though first want<br>> > > to make sure it is saying the right thing. It is largely based on the
<br>> > > IPR Policy for Microformats.<br>> > ><br>> > > <a href="http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/IPR_Policy" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://openid.net/wiki/index.php/IPR_Policy
</a><br>> ><br>> > A problem with saying "you MUST offer ... a royalty free license" is
<br>> > that in order to be open-source-friendly the licence has to be<br>> > automatic - otherwise potentially each user of the s/w has to jump<br>> > through hoops to get the licence.<br>> ><br>
> > >
<br>> > > Thanks,<br>> > > --David<br>> > > _______________________________________________<br>> > > general mailing list<br>> > > <a href="mailto:general@openid.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
general@openid.net
</a><br>> > > <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br>> > ><br>> > _______________________________________________
<br>> > general mailing list
<br>> > <a href="mailto:general@openid.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">general@openid.net</a><br>> > <a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br>><br>><br>_______________________________________________
<br>general mailing list<br><a href="mailto:general@openid.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">general@openid.net</a><br><a href="http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general</a><br></blockquote></div><br>