Last I heard Liberty is not part of OASIS, so I would expect a explicit OASIS declaration and NOT a pointer to a Liberty site that may change w/o OASIS knowledge or approval.
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
"Conor P. Cahill" <>
"Conor P. Cahill" <>
11/30/2004 08:14 AM
To
"NISHIMURA Toshihiro" <>
cc
Subject
Re: [security-services] Question about IPR on the final SAML V2 specs
At this point, you can go to the liberty site to review the disclosures.
A summary of the information there (you can read it yourself if you
like) -- You should also note that I am not a lawyer and am not
providing you with any kind of legal advice -- get your own lawyers
to do the review):
There are 5 diclosures.
AOL's is on IDFF and ID-WSF and has issued and non-issued
patents listed.
Catavault's is on IDFF but only lists NON-Issued patents.
Citigroup's is on ID-FF but only lists NON-issued patents.
Fidelity's is on ID-FF and lists an issued patent.
Sony's is on ID-WSF (NOT ID-FF).
NON-Issued patents have no standing so Catavault's and Citigroup's
statements are about stuff that was not yet real IP.
Sony's is about ID-WSF, not IDFF, so it doesn't matter in this
context.
So that leaves us with AOL's and Fidelity's statements which both
provide reciprocal royalty free licenses.
I'm not sure which of the 5 participate in the SSTC (other than AOL,
of course) and I don't know if any of them will feel the need to
make statements in OASIS beyond what they have already done in
Liberty.
Conor
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/security-services/members/leave_workgroup.php.
