incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Scott Cantor <canto...@osu.edu>
Subject RE: Revised OpenSAML proposal
Date Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:23:33 GMT
> > "A" license? What does this mean, that Apache has a license but all 
> > users of it need to ask for one too?  %-|
> 
> i think you'd need to ask an IPR lawyer this.

The RSA position up to this point is that vendors of toolkits not only need to get a license,
but also notify their customers that
they must acquire one. So Apache gets one to distribute this code, and then provides the notice
to users.

The *rumor* is that they may be changing their mind about this special toolkit case, but that's
not anything more than rumor.

The fundamental issue is that there is *no* license to get yet. It doesn't exist, the process
doesn't exist, etc. We've been
distributing code, Sun has shipping products, RSA and Phaos and others have toolkits, etc.


So there just isn't much ground to stand on yet.

> maybe someone at the ASF needs to approach RSA officially and 
> find out what their position is.

Many others are already doing this within the SSTC, and we will communicate that we're getting
even more anxious on the call next
week.

-- Scott


Mime
View raw message