Re: [security-services] Liberty IPR Issues (was: Liberty ID-FF 1. 2submission to the SSTC)

[Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@us.ibm.com>]

>Note that I am not at all faulting the WSS IPR grant, just pointing out
that such a "level" of IPR statement about a contribution has been accepted
by many of the same companies on this TC and therefore we shouldn't >be
demanding a higher, more detailed IPR statement since that level of
statement clearly allowed the WSS TC to complete their tasks.

Higher ? What Michael is asking for is at least the equivalent ?

Several companies have pointed out IPR concerns and we would like to see if
we can have a focus group to address these concerns.

Anthony Nadalin | work 512.436.9568 | cell 512.289.4122


|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           "Conor P. Cahill"|
|         |           <concahill@aol.co|
|         |           m>               |
|         |                            |
|         |           11/28/2003 11:56 |
|         |           AM               |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                                                |
  |       To:       Michael McIntosh/Watson/IBM@IBMUS                                                                                              |
  |       cc:       "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>, security-services@lists.oasis-open.org                                                     |
  |       Subject:  Re: [security-services] Liberty IPR Issues (was: Liberty ID-FF 1. 2 submission to the SSTC)                                    |
  >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|






Michael McIntosh wrote on 11/28/2003, 10:23 AM:


      The WSS authors explicitly granted "royalty-free and other reasonable
      and non-discriminatory terms and conditions" for IP they owned that
      they determined to be required for implementation of WSS. Since OASIS
      was standardizing the WSS specification, it was clear that those
      terms would apply to the resulting standard produced by OASIS.
I do not see any explicit grant within the IPR statement in WSS.  There is
a "commit to grant" and not a grant.  The "commit"  applies to what is
necessary to implement what is in the contributed specification, not an
open grant to anything that may show up as a product of the TC.

There is no identification of the IP involved, nor what portions of the
contributed specification that it may apply to, etc.

Note that I am not at all faulting the WSS IPR grant, just pointing out
that such a "level" of IPR statement about a contribution has been accepted
by many of the same companies on this TC and therefore we shouldn't be
demanding a higher, more detailed IPR statement since that level of
statement clearly allowed the WSS TC to complete their tasks.

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
.