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

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

 > Would you be resistant to making a statement to the effect
 > that Liberty members would commit to grant to SAML
 > implementations the same licensing terms granted to
 > Liberty implementations, limited to the same set of IP
 > necessary to implement Liberty?

That is the spirit in which the materials were contributed
to the SSTC.

 > Assuming that you will not make that commitment - can you say what you
 > think the TC might do that would cause you to not offer these same
 > terms? At least then we can try to avoid doing a lot of work on
 > a specification that might not be useful.

I can say that the only thing that would cause me to recommend
such action would be if the changes made by the SSTC created
significant roadblocks to implementation in the environments
envisioned within Liberty.

I tried to come up with an example of such a case, and for
the life of me I can't give you a good example of such a
case off the top of my head.

I have absolutely no reason to believe such a case will come
to pass and my participation here is to ensure that it doesn't
happen (or at least if it were to happen, it would only be
over the very loud objections of a fairly vocal person --
your's truely).

On a final note, I can tell you that AOL has contributed
significant efforts in this area within the Liberty Alliance
and we have made that available to the general public under
reciprocal-RF rights.  So, we have already demonstrated that
our interest is to have all of this under such terms.

Conor