Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 70443 invoked from network); 24 Feb 2010 22:29:22 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 24 Feb 2010 22:29:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 84081 invoked by uid 500); 24 Feb 2010 22:22:42 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-legal-discuss-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 83819 invoked by uid 500); 24 Feb 2010 22:22:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact legal-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: legal-discuss@apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list legal-discuss@apache.org Received: (qmail 83811 invoked by uid 99); 24 Feb 2010 22:22:41 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:22:41 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=10.0 tests=FUZZY_MERIDIA,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of kwright@metacarta.com designates 208.80.142.18 as permitted sender) Received: from [208.80.142.18] (HELO silene.metacarta.com) (208.80.142.18) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:22:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (silene.metacarta.com [208.80.142.18]) by silene.metacarta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A86FC14C816D for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:22:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from silene.metacarta.com ([208.80.142.18]) by localhost (silene.metacarta.com [208.80.142.18]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23708-03 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:22:10 -0500 (EST) X-Auth-Received: from [192.168.1.100] (146-115-112-29.c3-0.lex-ubr1.sbo-lex.ma.cable.rcn.com [146.115.112.29]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by silene.metacarta.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C545514C8166 for ; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:22:10 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4B85A730.5050609@metacarta.com> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:24:48 -0500 From: Karl Wright User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: legal-discuss@apache.org Subject: Re: Apache NTLM implementations References: <4B859372.6050209@metacarta.com> In-Reply-To: <4B859372.6050209@metacarta.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at metacarta.com X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Karl Wright wrote: > Hi all, > > I work with the Lucene Connector Framework project. Reviewers here want > to know if there's any controlling legal ASF document that describes the > policy of Apache vis-a-vis native Apache-licensed NTLM implementations. > Does anyone know of such a document? > > Thanks, > Karl Wright > For clarification - As part of the software grant from MetaCarta, Inc. to ASF, as the foundation of Lucene Connector Framework, a full and copyright-unencumbered client-side implementation of NTLM as a patch for Apache HttpClient was also granted. This functionality is essential for the functioning of the following connectors: - LiveLink - SharePoint - RSS (where Windows proxies are involved) - Web (where NTLM-protected content is involved) - Meridio As part of the initial phase of development, I submitted this implementation to the HttpClient project, and received advice that it could not be accepted because of Apache policy pertaining to potential issues of IP infringement. Given that it is my understanding that it is currently not possible to patent a protocol, but only a specific implementation of a protocol, I wanted to confirm that this was indeed the case, and read up on the Apache policies involved. Thanks again, Karl Wright --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org