[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Liberty IPR Issues (was: Liberty ID-FF 1.2 submission to the SSTC)
In addition, it's no different from the licensing terms offered in the case of other OASIS contributions. As an example, here is the relevant bit from the IPR page of the WSS TC: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss/ipr.php "2. Each Author commits to grant a non sub-licenseable, non-transferable license to third parties, under royalty-free and other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, to certain of their respective patent claims that such Author deems necessary to implement required portokions [sic] of the WS-Security specification, provided a reciprocal license is granted." (I looked at the SPML pages to see if I could find another example since they supposedly recently had a contribution, but I don't have access the meeting minutes where the contribution happened, there is nothing on the IPR page about it, and I can't find the contributed document(s) in the repository. Are there no explicit licensing terms for that contribution?) Eve Conor P. Cahill wrote: > > > Michael McIntosh wrote on 11/25/2003, 2:42 PM: > >> Have the OASIS Members that have submitted these specifications asked >> for or received any statements from the other Liberty members >> regarding their intentions regarding licensing terms for their IP? Is >> it expected (or stated anywhere) that the same terms granted for >> Liberty implementations will apply to SAML implementations? > > While this looks like a good question, I think that this proactive > approach is not required by OASIS IPR rules. In addition, and perhaps > even more importantly, if someone were to ask me such a question, I > would have to respond with "Show me the derivation and I'll tell you", > especially if I was not participatingg in the SSTC. > > This is, in part, because I can't even tell you if the derivation will > still covered by any IP that I may have and in part that I don't know if > the derivation will include new IP that the current implementation does > not include. > > I think our options in this area are to: > > a) ensure that the 2.0 work remains compliant with the ID-FF submission > so that it is covered under the existing IPR disclosures. Note that > this is much easier than if we were to try to work-around any IPR. > > b) once the 2.0 work is done, ask the Liberty folks to "adopt iit" as > part of their next release (which, I can tell you unofficially, is their > intent -- the SSTC is the primary location for further ID-FF work). > > c) Ignore the IPR issues and just include a statement about the IPR with > the 2.0 specs. > > There are, of course, other steps that could be taken, these are just > the big options that I see. > > Conor > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of > the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security-services/members/leave_workgroup.php. > -- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems cell +1 781 354 9441 Web Products, Technologies, and Standards eve.maler @ sun.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]