> No it says that your enduser of the Apache SAML library may > have to pay RSA for a license (or rather it doesn't say that they won't).
Uh, no it doesn't. It says quite explicitly (in the loose language of intent) that they do *not* plan to charge. Or if that's not clear, please at least take my word that that is what RSA has made clear to me and other SSTC members. No money. Just reciprocity *on SAML IPR*. What it doesn't say is that they plan to promise never to change their mind about it. I think that's unfortunate. > >Do these terms make Sun a subsidiary of RSA? They have a > SAML product out now. > > > And they can pay RSA for licenses for users of it... And they are not doing so. > Okay. I'm just noting that these terms look objectionable. Do they still look so? Again, is the issue *these terms* or the fact that they could change? I think the latter is the problem. > I don't see a motivation for Apache to accept projects which > might/would require the enduser to pay a company royalties. This seems > contrary to the terms and spirit. Just curious...is there anything other than industry pressure (and total user backlash) that would stop Sun from doing so with Java? -- Scott --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
