Re: [security-services] Proposed wording for IPR standing rule

["Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>]

I did some more research on the wording below and, believe it or not, 
have now come to the conclusion that it's better not to advance it as a 
standing rule.  Here are my reasons:

- We felt most comfortable avoding "MUST"-type phrasing, and yet
   I found that several people have had considerable confusion about
   how  "SHOULD"-like the "It is a goal..." phrasing really was.
   Since the standard OASIS policy allows us to treat opportunities
   case-by-case anyway, and since our chosen wording below has no
   legal teeth by design, we lose nothing by using the default OASIS
   policy.

- My understanding is that the OASIS board is carefully scrutinizing
   all TC-specific IPR policies, and to date has only approved one
   formulation: the one used in the LegalXML TCs.  Even though the
   wording below is close to the approved wording, the differences
   are there by design and could hang us up with a lot of process.

- This TC has had a lot of success to date in working with owners
   of disclosed SAML-related patents to ensure an environment that
   is as "safe and friendly" as possible for implementors.  This
   already demonstrates to the world, in a robust fashion, what
   our commitment is.

In sum, it seems like more trouble than it's worth to pursue this 
standing rule at this time.  So I will not be making this motion...

	Eve

Eve L. Maler wrote:
> In today's telecon, we approved a newly clarified charter, and also 
> began to approve standing rules that will be linked to from the charter. 
>  We have approved two so far; the rule related to IPR remains to be 
> decided on.
> 
> We are planning to vote on the following standing rule in our next 
> telecon on March 4th.  Please use this time to check with your corporate 
> attorneys as necessary.  One idea that came up on the mailing list and 
> in today's call was to simplify the wording to make it easier for 
> implementors to understand; while we ultimately backed off from this 
> idea in order to stick closely to wording that's already in use in the 
> LegalXML TCs, if you feel this is important, please look into the 
> acceptable possibilities for doing do with your experts on hand.
> 
> "It is the goal of the TC not to approve any technical specification if 
> it believes that the use, distribution, or implementation of such 
> specification would require the unauthorized infringement of any third 
> party rights known to the TC, and such third party has not agreed to 
> provide and openly specify necessary license rights on perpetual, 
> royalty-free, non-discriminatory terms."
> 
> If you have suggestions or questions, please post them as a response to 
> this message.
> 
>     Eve
> 

-- 
Eve Maler                                        +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems                            cell +1 781 354 9441
Web Technologies and Standards               eve.maler @ sun.com