Re: [security-services] Liberty IPR Issues (was: Liberty ID-FF 1. 2 submissionto the SSTC)

["Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>]

Michael McIntosh wrote on 11/28/2003, 10:23 AM:

>   The WSS authors explicitly
> granted "royalty-free
> and other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions"
> for IP they owned that they determined to be required for
> implementation
> of WSS. Since OASIS was standardizing the WSS specification, it was
> clear
> that those terms would apply to the resulting standard produced by
> OASIS.
I do not see any
explicit grant within the IPR statement in WSS.  There is a "commit to
grant" and not a grant.  The "commit"  applies to what is necessary to
implement what is in the contributed specification, not an open grant
to anything that may show up as a product of the TC.

There is no identification of the IP involved, nor what portions of the
contributed specification that it may apply to, etc.

Note that I am not at all faulting the WSS IPR grant, just pointing out
that such a "level" of IPR statement about a contribution has been
accepted by many of the same companies on this TC and therefore we
shouldn't be demanding a higher, more detailed IPR statement since that
level of statement clearly allowed the WSS TC to complete their tasks.

Conor