[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [rights] OASIS Rights Language TC...Questions
Bob makes a reasonable point, which I could state even more explicitly: specific discussions of (a) IP that *might* read on the output of RLTC, and (b) T&C's that might be applied for implementor's used of that output, are best handled out-of-band. Indeed, the issue of whether a particular claim does or doesn't apply in a particular cased is *seldom* adequately answered by a mere engineer. Thus, our focus should be on creating a great standard in an open environment! My motivation for bringing up the T&C questions was that they generally reflect the concerns that parties have had, even before the advent of RLTC. Since it isn't our IP, we can't answer the questions. But if they can't be answered by the appropriate parties to the satisfaction of *adopters* (or potential adopters) of our work, then we'll ultimately have a credibility problem. I'm satisfied at this point that the concerns have at least been been note; we as a group will be watchful but not sidetracked, and I look forward to a great standards process! John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Atkinson" <bobatk@Exchange.Microsoft.com> To: "John Erickson" <john_erickson@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; <rights@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 2:09 PM Subject: RE: [rights] OASIS Rights Language TC...Questions 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?
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC