www-legal-discuss mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting Thursday July 21st @9:00
Date Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:07:32 GMT
Steve, 

This is the way it works...the original IPR statement from
MSFT/IBM/Verisign to the OASIS WSS TC was in 2002. This IPR statement
was for the submission of the original spec to the OASIS TC. Any
company has 1 year to submit patent applications from the day of the
first publication (in this case the public submission to the TC). This
statement confirms our suspicion that there are no patents involved
for which license is required for the OASIS WSS
core/usernametoken/x509 profile specs (there are others which are
probably encumbered say SAML and we don't implement SAML in Apache)
for the versions that we have implemented in Apache.

We have to wait for the next round of disclosures to WSS TC for 1.1
spec and pray that companies will do the right thing inspite of the
lame OASIS IPR Policy (both old and new). (Specifically by disclosing
patent #'s as soon as they know about them, usually they just wait
till the next rev of the spec.)

-- dims

On 7/22/05, Stephen McConnell <mcconnell@dpml.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, 22 July 2005 3:52 PM
> > To: legal-discuss@apache.org
> > Subject: Fwd: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting
> > Thursday July 21st @9:00
> >
> > FYI
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Jim Markwith (LCA) <jimmark@microsoft.com>
> > Date: Jul 21, 2005 8:33 PM
> > Subject: Followup to: License for WS-Security Meeting
> > Thursday July 21st @9:00
> > To: Cliff Schmidt <cliffschmidt@gmail.com>, Sam Ruby
> > <rubys@apache.org>, dims@apache.org
> > Cc: "Jenny Winslow (LCA)" <jenwin@microsoft.com>, "Amy Marasco (LCA)"
> > <amarasco@microsoft.com>, "Scott Edwards (LCA)"
> > <scottedw@microsoft.com>, "Valerie See (LCA)"
> > <vsee@windows.microsoft.com>, "Jim Markwith (LCA)"
> > <jimmark@microsoft.com>
> >
> > Cliff and Dims,
> >
> > It was a pleasure speaking with you earlier today.
> >
> > As a follow-up to our conversation, please be advised that,
> > as of today, neither Amy nor I know of any issued Microsoft
> > patent claims necessary for the implementation of
> > WS-Security, as defined in our sample posted license.
> 
> Can anyone confirm if the opinions put forward by either Amy or Jim can be
> interpreted as a standing and irrevocable commitment of the corporate
> position of the Microsoft Corporation with respect to current and/or future
> implementations of the WS-Security specification?
> 
> Cheers, Steve.
> 
> (innocent bystander)
> 
> 


-- 
Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message