OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

security-services message

[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 

> -----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