|Eve L. Maler||Apr 30, 2002 3:58 pm|
|Karl F. Best||May 1, 2002 6:34 am|
|Eduardo Gutentag||May 1, 2002 3:34 pm|
|dcpl...@ftnetwork.com||May 2, 2002 12:36 am|
|Karl F. Best||May 2, 2002 5:19 am|
|Karl F. Best||May 2, 2002 5:41 am|
|dcpl...@ftnetwork.com||May 2, 2002 9:37 am|
|dcpl...@ftnetwork.com||May 2, 2002 9:42 am|
|Norman Walsh||May 28, 2002 12:40 pm|
|Subject:||RE: [spectools] IPR statements and OASIS specs|
|From:||Karl F. Best (karl...@oasis-open.org)|
|Date:||May 2, 2002 5:19:29 am|
Works for me.
-----Original Message----- From: edua...@jurassic.eng.sun.com [mailto:edua...@jurassic.eng.sun.com]On Behalf Of Eduardo Gutentag Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 6:37 PM To: Karl F. Best Cc: spec...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [spectools] IPR statements and OASIS specs
This kind of boilerplate (BTW, I agree wholeheartedly that there should be boilerplate in the status section) creates two classes of specs, those that carry the boilerplate because it's true that one or more patents have been disclosed, and those that don't carry the boilerplate. Which class to choose may be subject to human error; further, one that belongs to the second may have to change suddenly to the first, even during voting freeze...I therefore propose that the boilerplate be similar to the second one that Eve proposed, with a couple of modifications:
"For information on wether any patents have been disclosed that may be essential to implementing this specification, and any offers of patent licensing terms, please refer to the Intellectual Property Rights section of the xxxTC web page (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xxxTC)"
This boilerplate would of course be mandatory, not optional.
"Karl F. Best" wrote:
I agree that the IP statement should stay on the web page, but a pointer should be in the spec document. Your suggestion is just about right for length and content, but since this is a template we could make it more generic:
"One or more patents or other claims of intellectual property rights have been disclosed whose use may be essential to implementing this specification. See the Intellectual Property Rights section of the Technical Committee's web page for disclosure of these patents and any offers of patent licensing terms."
This would be an optional statement of course, as not all specs will have IP claims.
I'm just trying to figure out how to alert readers of the SAML specs about the patents that have been disclosed on SAML. What do you folks think of the following suggestions for boilerplate text? If you like them, Norm and I could put this in the sample docs...
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [security-services] RSA Security IPR statement Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 18:56:25 -0400 From: "Eve L. Maler" <eve....@sun.com> To: "Philpott, Robert" <rphi...@rsasecurity.com>
Philpott, Robert wrote: ...
Would it be cleaner to just stick it in an appendix of each document?
Just a thought... In case you haven't already done this,
perhaps an appendix
for IPR statements should be in the OASIS template you built. I'd hate to clutter up the documents with full IPR letters from any and all companies with IP - fortunately SAML's just got this one. The best solution in my mind would be to have a brief, standard boilerplate statement approved by OASIS in the appendix and reference back to the appropriate committee web page at the OASIS site. Is this what OASIS is thinking also or are they sticking in the entire statement from the company?
I don't know if they had really gotten that far in their thinking. I think it's probably not a good idea to put the actual text of the letter/statement in the spec, for more than just space reasons. For example, RSAS changed its text once already, and it's free to do so again. Also, new statements might be made by other companies later, even after SAML becomes an OASIS Standard. So it's probably best to have standard boilerplate, as you say, with a link.
The next question is where to put the boilerplate. There are two obvious possibilities: an appendix and the Status on the title page. If the boilerplate is fairly modest in size, I think the Status section is best, since IPR concerns can materially affect the status of a specification. Here is the kind of text I can see putting in:
"One or more patents have been disclosed whose use may be essential to implementing this specification. See the Intellectual Property Rights section of the Security Services web page (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/security) for disclosure of these patents and any offers of patent licensing terms."
Oh, and in the case of specs for which no patents have been disclosed yet, there should perhaps still be something like this:
"See the Intellectual Property Rights section of the xxx TC web page (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/xxxTC) for information on the disclosure of any patents that may be essential to implementing this specification and any offers of patent licensing terms."
This seems small enough for the Status section. What do you think?
(By the way, I note that the first paragraph in the Notices appendix talks about getting IPR information, but it's too general and too boilerplate-ish to really convey much to the casual reader...)
-- Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190 Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
-- Eduardo Gutentag | e-mail: edua...@Sun.COM XML Technology Center | Phone: (510) 986-3651 Sun Microsystems Inc. |