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*.
Humm.. I'll read it again but thats not what I got out of it. It seemed to say that licenses will be available for the endusers and that we must inform them.
What it doesn't say is that they plan to promise never to change their mind about it. I think that's unfortunate.
yes.
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.
That is a problem as well, however my problem is that it requires endusers to acquire an additional license.
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?
This is besides the point. Java is not an Apache project. This is more of a problem for the GCJ folks to consider.
-Andy
-- Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
