[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [security-services] Liberty IPR Issues (was: Liberty ID-FF 1. 2submission to the SSTC)
>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. Higher ? What Michael is asking for is at least the equivalent ? Several companies have pointed out IPR concerns and we would like to see if we can have a focus group to address these concerns. Anthony Nadalin | work 512.436.9568 | cell 512.289.4122 |---------+----------------------------> | | "Conor P. Cahill"| | | <concahill@aol.co| | | m> | | | | | | 11/28/2003 11:56 | | | AM | |---------+----------------------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: Michael McIntosh/Watson/IBM@IBMUS | | cc: "Eve L. Maler" <eve.maler@sun.com>, security-services@lists.oasis-open.org | | Subject: Re: [security-services] Liberty IPR Issues (was: Liberty ID-FF 1. 2 submission to the SSTC) | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| 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 To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security-services/members/leave_workgroup.php .
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]