RE: [rights] OASIS Rights Language TC...Questions

[Bob Atkinson <bobatk@Exchange.Microsoft.com>]

Thanks John.

I am a little confused as to why some of these questions are being
raised in this forum rather than being addressed bilaterally to
ContentGuard (or whomever else we might find has IP in our area). A
public discussion in the TC of terms and conditions, for example, would
be something that in my experience would be oddly unique to be carried
on within the standards forum itself. And public discussions and
theorizing as to the applicable breadth of particular patents is
something that lawyers who hold my chain won't even let me *think* about
contemplating.

	Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: John Erickson [mailto:john_erickson@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 8:23 AM
To: rights@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [rights] OASIS Rights Language TC...Questions

Regarding the questions I submitted on Saturday, some were answered
yesterday,
some weren't.

Also, I have added a sixth question, re open source implementations, at
the
end...

See below:

[...]


> There have been public statements by ContentGuard officials
> suggesting that their patents cover "all" rights expression
> languages; should we interpret this to mean that ContentGuard
> would consider our work product to fall under this as
> well --- regardless of our contributions?

NOT ANSWERED (at least not specifically)

> 5. What is the full extent of the expected licensing terms?
> For example, will adopters of the OASIS standard be required
> to display the XrML and/or ContentGuard logo? Will adopters
> be required to use a particular code set or tool kit, from
> a particular vendor?

NOT ANSWERED: This question was raised, and discussed to understand the
question, but ultimately was not answered.

Here's another question:

6. What is ContentGuard's position of open source (e.g. reference)
implementations of the anticipated RLTC-prodiced specification?