[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wss] RSA license and the upcoming SAML Interop
Since OASIS is on an individual membership I had no idea and since the other IPR statements clearly state the company name in the claim, so thanks for clarifying. I never said I had an issue with "believe" I had a problem with "we believe" its Bill that took it out of context.
Tony, To be clear, I was speaking on behalf of RSA. I am not sure why that should ever have been in doubt as I was responsible for posting the IP notice. I am not going to restate in ad hoc terms what the applicability of the IP may be – that is the purpose of very expensive and carefully worded patent applications. As Bill has quite succinctly pointed out the use of the word “believe” in the context of IP assertions is normal practice. RSA (that would be the “we” in this case) has extended an ROYALTY FREE reciprocal license in these areas, not only for the interop event but also for general implementations of WSS. Unlike owners of other IP in this area we have made it clear that we will not be seeking to make revenue from licensing this technology. I may have missed something in your description of the problem, but I frankly do not understand why this has become such a monumental issue. --Andrew Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:38 PM To: Bill Smith Cc: 'wss@lists.oasis-open.org' Subject: Re: [wss] RSA license and the upcoming SAML Interop I had reviewed the link you posted before I posted my append, and I have no context for the "we believe", is this Andrew, or is this RSA or some other entity ? Thus the difference in the link and what is posted from Andrew.
In reviewing the IPR declarations for WS-Security (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss/ipr.php), it seems that all of the individual IPR notices contain the word "believes". I assume these declarations (from ContentGuard, Microsoft, and RSA) were acceptable under OASIS IPR Policy. If so, I don't see the problem with the text quoted below. Anthony Nadalin wrote:
I would like to either reopen AI #280 or create a new AI to cover these concerns. Anthony Nadalin | work 512.838.0085 | cell 512.289.4122 "Nash, Andrew" <ANash@rsasecurity.com>
After some careful review today, we believe that it will not be necessary for implementers engaged in supporting the upcoming interop scenarios to sign the RF license agreement with RSA, provided that Scenario #3 does not make use of an encrypted channel between the Requestor and Responder. --Andrew |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]