Loading Profile...
What are the requirements for participating as an individual?
There's a list of individuals listed on the OWF site: http://openwebfoundation.org/communit... without any indication of role, the nature of their participation, etc. Can we get more information on what it means to participate?
I’m curious
13
people have this question
I have this question, too!
Tell me when someone answers.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The more people who ask this question, the more it gets noticed.
The best answer from the company
-
Great question Steve -- the initial list of folks is there primarily as a stub based on the folks who have been going around for awhile trying to get this off the ground. We started with a small, dedicated group of folks who had this problem pressing upon them (i.e. seeing a need to create another foundation-like structure to hold OAuth).
We are currently working out our approach to membership, but we're going to lean heavily on the "open source model" as pioneered by ASF and others.
We're *very* early in terms of the structure right now -- we've primarily been focused on nailing down an IPR agreement that weighs the needs and protection of individuals with the fears/concerns of companies. We should have more clarity on this over the next month -- and invite your thoughts on the mailing list.
I’m excited
The company and 3 other people say
this answers the question
Create a customer community for your own organization
Plans starting at $19/month
-
Inappropriate?Great question Steve -- the initial list of folks is there primarily as a stub based on the folks who have been going around for awhile trying to get this off the ground. We started with a small, dedicated group of folks who had this problem pressing upon them (i.e. seeing a need to create another foundation-like structure to hold OAuth).
We are currently working out our approach to membership, but we're going to lean heavily on the "open source model" as pioneered by ASF and others.
We're *very* early in terms of the structure right now -- we've primarily been focused on nailing down an IPR agreement that weighs the needs and protection of individuals with the fears/concerns of companies. We should have more clarity on this over the next month -- and invite your thoughts on the mailing list.
I’m excited
The company and 3 other people say
this answers the question
-
-
Inappropriate?@tabesin: I don't see any way to get "pro software patent stance" out of what Chris wrote - OWF is in fact pushing the opposite. I'd rather not assume you're trolling - can you explain how you came to your understanding?
I’m perplexed
-
Inappropriate?"We're *very* early in terms of the structure right now -- we've primarily been focused on nailing down an IPR agreement that weighs the needs and protection of individuals with the fears/concerns of companies."
-
Inappropriate?Ah, I see.
Addressing the "fears/concerns of companies" does NOT mean being pro-software-patent. It does mean working within the current patent/IPR environment (encouraging companies to commit to non-assert agreements which protect everyone's right to implement a spec).
At the same time, I think you'll find most everyone involved with OWF encouraging companies to forego software patents in favor of open specs/standards and community building around those standards.
I’m encouraged
-
Inappropriate?Additionally, the non-assert approach is the one that, in recent years, has proven the most widely "acceptable" for large companies that can offer us scale and motivate implementation of various software ideas or protocols. Other approaches have that attempted (for example) to set scope of work or protocol often take months to negotiate before any spec work even begins!
We're attempting to offer an alternative approach that allows communities and individuals and small organizations to come together to solve mutual problems (i.e. solutions like oEmbed) that can then be offered up to larger companies to implement with clean IP.
We aren't going to solve software patents with the OWF, but it will give us an alternative approach in the meanwhile until (and whether or not) patent law is improved. -
Inappropriate?Thanks for the information,
what approach do you aim to follow: RF or RAND? Or haven't you decided yet. It all boils down to that question which is the heart of standard politics.
Patent indemnification and licensing is a legal field under development and a worldwide applicable and tested model is not existing yet. Private law is internationally very much diverse. We don't have unified license models. See http://www.patentcommons.org/ for parts of the current model zoo.
I’m confident
1 Comment Add a comment
This answers the question
-
Thanks for the link to Patent Commons. I'd highly recommend that you check out the mailing list as this topic is being covered currently:
http://groups.google.com/group/open-w...
EMPLOYEE
