Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer
Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu> Wed, 09 May 2012 21:45 UTC
Return-Path: <hartmans@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: oauth@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFBB11E80BF for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.467
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.802, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g-hh+HpoY6Xu for <oauth@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from permutation-city.suchdamage.org (permutation-city.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3093911E8076 for <oauth@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2012 14:45:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org [69.25.196.178]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "laptop", Issuer "laptop" (not verified)) by mail.suchdamage.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAB2020348; Wed, 9 May 2012 17:41:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by carter-zimmerman.suchdamage.org (Postfix, from userid 8042) id 1796E448D; Wed, 9 May 2012 17:45:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
References: <0E17EDDE-567A-40BF-9CB9-0D6B757FF0A5@gmx.net> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA2010259C4@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net> <6CE569CC-091C-456D-8426-FB3200ED4667@gmx.net> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA201025F4F@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net> <4FAAC251.3010903@mtcc.com> <0CBAEB56DDB3A140BA8E8C124C04ECA201026058@P3PWEX2MB008.ex2.secureserver.net> <4FAAC6C4.7080502@mtcc.com> <4FAAD2DF.4080500@cs.tcd.ie> <4FAAD43C.501@mtcc.com>
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 17:45:39 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4FAAD43C.501@mtcc.com> (Michael Thomas's message of "Wed, 09 May 2012 13:31:56 -0700")
Message-ID: <tslbolxgha4.fsf@mit.edu>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110009 (No Gnus v0.9) Emacs/22.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: "oauth@ietf.org WG" <oauth@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer
X-BeenThere: oauth@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OAUTH WG <oauth.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/oauth>
List-Post: <mailto:oauth@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth>, <mailto:oauth-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 21:45:51 -0000
So, here are statements that you could make as part of this discussion that would be entirely in scope: 1) I've read the IPR. Prior to this disclosure I was interested in developing|deploying|shipping an implementation of this specification. Now I am not. 2) I think you could go so far as to say. Based on this IPR I would no longer feel comfortable making an open-source implementation of this spec available. 3) Or on the other side: I've reviewed this new IPR and I believe I could implement|ship|deploy|whatever this specification. Or if you don't like giving out as much information as 1-3: 4) I've reviewed the new IPr and I recommend that we not advance this standard 5) I've reviewed the IPR and I do recommend we advance. Obviously, people may weigh statements of the form 1-3 with more value than 4-5. However it's really hard to get many organizations to say something in the 1-3 range. Other valid things to say in such a context include: 6) We've successfully obtained any licenses we believe that we need in order to implement this specification given the IPR. 7) We attempted to obtain the licenses we needed in order to implement given this IPR but were unsuccessful. believe all the above statements are acceptable. In particular, none of them comment on the validity of the IPR nor give legal advice about stuff. I believe you could even go so far as to say something like I believe that an open-source implementation of this technology is|is not important to whether we should standardize it. I believe we've come very close to that in the past.
- [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Eran Hammer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Eran Hammer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Eran Hammer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Eran Hammer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Eran Hammer
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Michael Thomas
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Stephen Farrell
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Sam Hartman
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer William Mills
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Eliot Lear
- Re: [OAUTH-WG] IPR on OAuth bearer Dick Hardt