That is a problem as well, however my problem is that it requires
endusers to acquire an additional license.
Ok. As long as it's clear that it's not a royalty-based license, that's all I'm attempting to clarify.
they don't "intend" to make it royalty-based. Thats really weak.
-- Sco
Scott Cantor wrote:
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, ple
Scott Cantor wrote:
On my part this is -1 on these types of terms in general.
These terms basically make Apache a free development
subsidiary of RSA which is just not good.
I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning. The license language that they are supposedly writing does not connote a
On my part this is -1 on these types of terms in general. These terms
basically make Apache a free development
subsidiary of RSA which is just not good. This is not specific to
OpenSAML. I look forward to a web services
security standard which is not tied to proprietary licensing.
Is it possi
+1 - very well said.
Please don't overgeneralize.
I don't believe that SOAP or WSDL or JAX RPC are legal mine fields.
Every few months or so, however, a conspiracy theory shows up on
Slashdot or the Register or ScriptingNews that IBM or Microsoft or RSA
or whoever is undermining web services
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Andrew,
Since Web Services = Legal Mine field...Getting the license for Apache will ensure that Apache as
a Legal Entity will be protected and that the coding can go on for now. There are 2 JSR's in the
jcp and WS-Security spec in OASIS that will need this as well.
Am no
I think there was something (maybe on slashdot) recently about
"letters of intent". The conclusion seemed to be that they are pretty
much meaningless and unenforceable.
I think one also can keep this company's dubious history in mind.
-Andy
Conor
Sam Ruby wrote:
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Isn't that a no no?
The board is discussing this.
What scares the crap out of me is the weasel words. "intent to offer
royalty free...".
As a rule, lawyers are very careful in what they say and do not say. I
can only presume that the word "intent"
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Andrew,
Since Web Services = Legal Mine field...Getting the license for Apache will ensure that Apache as
a Legal Entity will be protected and that the coding can go on for now. There are 2 JSR's in the
jcp and WS-Security spec in OASIS that will need this as well.
Am n
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
Isn't that a no no?
The board is discussing this.
What scares the crap out of me is the weasel words. "intent to offer
royalty free...".
As a rule, lawyers are very careful in what they say and do not say. I
can only presume that the word "intent" was carefully chos
Isn't that a no no?
Davanum Srinivas wrote:
Andrew,
IANAL...But I think you are right.
Thanks,
dims
--- "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Clarify this for me. I might contribute to this OpenSAML, which I'm
free to do as a member of Apache who would hence have license. Howeve
Clarify this for me. I might contribute to this OpenSAML, which I'm
free to do as a member of Apache who would hence have license. However
if I take this back to my company (outside of Apache) I must then seek
another license which by intent (though not by agreement) would again be
Royalty fr
Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 17/02/2003 16.23:
Incubator Folks,
We (PMC@WS) had a VOTE for accepting OpenSAML as part of Web Services project. Here are the
results.
+1 from 12 members. Zero -1 or -0 or +0 votes.
Excellent.
What should we do next. Please advise.
The only thing that I'd want
13 matches
Mail list logo
