[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [security-services] Proposed wording for IPR standing rule
Thanks Eve - I concur... Rob Philpott RSA Security Inc. The Most Trusted Name in e-Security Tel: 781-515-7115 Mobile: 617-510-0893 Fax: 781-515-7020 mailto:rphilpott@rsasecurity.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Eve L. Maler [mailto:eve.maler@sun.com] > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:52 PM > To: 'security-services@lists.oasis-open.org' > Subject: Re: [security-services] Proposed wording for IPR standing rule > > 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 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC