Tony,
To be clear, I was speaking on behalf of RSA.
I am not sure why that should ever have been in doubt as I was responsible for
posting the IP notice. I am not going to restate in ad hoc terms what the applicability
of the IP may be – that is the purpose of very expensive and carefully
worded patent applications.
As Bill has quite succinctly pointed out the
use of the word “believe” in the context of IP assertions is normal
practice.
RSA (that would be the “we” in
this case) has extended an ROYALTY FREE reciprocal license in these areas, not
only for the interop event but also for general implementations of WSS. Unlike
owners of other IP in this area we have made it clear that we will not be
seeking to make revenue from licensing this technology.
I may have missed something in your
description of the problem, but I frankly do not understand why this has become
such a monumental issue.
--Andrew
From: Anthony Nadalin
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004
12:38 PM
To: Bill Smith
Cc: ''
Subject: Re: [wss] RSA license and
the upcoming SAML Interop
I had reviewed the link you posted before I posted my
append, and I have no context for the "we believe", is this Andrew,
or is this RSA or some other entity ? Thus the difference in the link and what
is posted from Andrew.
Anthony Nadalin | work 512.838.0085 | cell 512.289.4122
Bill
Smith <>
Bill
Smith <>
06/02/2004 10:49 AM
To
Anthony
Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"''"
<>
Subject
Re: [wss] RSA
license and the upcoming SAML Interop
In reviewing the IPR
declarations for WS-Security (http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/wss/ipr.php), it seems that all of the individual
IPR notices contain the word "believes". I assume these declarations
(from ContentGuard, Microsoft, and RSA) were acceptable under OASIS IPR Policy.
If so, I don't see the problem with the text quoted below.
Anthony Nadalin wrote:
There
was a action item that was closed today AI #280. The wording below is not
definitive ("we believe") which is somewhat worry some, can we please
make a clear IPR statement as IPR statement (I take this as an IPR
statement) is worded in such a way as to suggest that doing anything
"useful" with the SAML profile and encrypted channels may require
licensing RSA patents.
I would like to either reopen AI #280 or create a new AI to cover these
concerns.
Anthony Nadalin | work 512.838.0085 | cell 512.289.4122
"Nash, Andrew" <>
"Nash,
Andrew" <>
05/04/2004 04:51 PM
To
"''"
<>
cc
Subject
[wss] RSA license and the upcoming SAML Interop
After some careful review today, we believe that it will not be necessary for
implementers engaged in supporting the upcoming interop scenarios to sign the RF license
agreement with RSA, provided that Scenario #3 does not make use of an encrypted
channel between the Requestor and Responder.
--Andrew
