Changing the licenses once they're set won't be easy — since the point
of the agreement is to codify a specific and particular understanding
of the ownership model (or non-ownership desire) of a group of
implementors.
The first agreement is here:
http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/agreement/
Meanwhile, feedback should be submitted here:
http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-legal-drafting
Chris
On Jan 24, 2:36 am, Jesse Stay <jesses...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the OWF agreement is an excellent idea - I'd love to see Twitter
> join in that agreement with its developers. If Twitter has concerns with it
> I'd love to see them get involved in the OWF discussions and perhaps the
> agreement could be modified to meet Twitter's needs. Why reinvent the
> wheel?
>
> Jesse
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 6:28 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dclin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the update, Ryan. And thanks for the compliment on the Google
> > Code policies page -- that page was one of the first things I launched at
> > Google back when we were being asked the exact same questions.
>
> > We also added patent licences, which follow this general format:
>
> > http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/patent-license.html
>
> > Granted, that license is maybe even more liberal than most implementors
> > require. Also, that was before we had a reusable patent agreement, such as
> > the OWFa:http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/agreement/. If I did
> > something new outside Google I'd probably go the OWF route now.
>
> > Trademark is trickier. I'm not sure we've quite nailed it yet at Google,
> > actually. But the basic framework might be a statement that enumerates
> > specific marks and lists specific appropriate usages. You can always add to
> > that list over time, and this would protect Twitter's rights in the cases
> > you haven't anticipated yet.
>
> > Thanks again for pushing this forward. Cheers,
>
> > -DeWitt
>
> > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Ryan Sarver <rsar...@twitter.com> wrote:
>
> >> DeWitt,
>
> >> Thanks for the serious patience on this thread. We're constantly trying to
> >> adapt to the needs of the developer community, and you're right that we
> >> haven't published guidelines around use of the Twitter API specifications.
> >> But, we are working on it and I wanted to share some of the thought that
> >> will help drive the policy.
>
> >> What we do know is that there is a clear need for a flexible, friendly and
> >> responsible policy. Policies such as this one (
> >>http://code.google.com/policies.html#restrictions) are a good start, and
> >> I can share some principles we'd like to live by. CC-BY should apply to a
> >> lot of the tools we release. You should be able to copy, modify and make
> >> derivatives of our specifications (with attribution). We shouldn't throw
> >> arbitrary roadblocks in your way, such as preventing you from naming a
> >> library "tweet." And last, we shouldn't pester you for utilizing our patents
> >> underlying these specifications.
>
> >> These are flexible and friendly principles, and in exchange we ask the
> >> development community to act responsibly. For example, naming a library
> >> "twitter" is one thing. Naming your application "twitter" is quite another.
>
> >> We hear you loud and clear, so please bear with us as we translate these
> >> principles into official policy.
>
> >> Thanks again for your patience and interest :)
>
> >> Best, Ryan
>
> >> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:12 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dclin...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
> >>> Hi all,
>
> >>> I recently received a request to implement the "retweet" api calls in the
> >>> python-twitter and java-twitter libraries, but before I proceed I was hoping
> >>> for a bit of clarification around the licensing terms for the Twitter API.
>
> >>> My layman's understanding is that without explicit terms there are
> >>> relatively few rights offered by default regarding a specification. In
> >>> particular, I have a few questions about copyright, trademark, and patents
> >>> rights being offered to implementors of the Twitter API. My longstanding
> >>> sense is that Twitter has indicated the spirit of offering the API under
> >>> generally permissive usage rights, so hopefully this thread can move the
> >>> discussion forward a bit and perhaps turn that spirit into something more
> >>> formal.
>
> >>> *Copyright*
>
> >>> **Question: Under what terms may third-party library and application
> >>> developers use the text and images associated with the Twitter API
> >>> specification?
>
> >>> Example use case: Third-party library developers would like to copy
> >>> and/or modify the text of the Twitter API specification in the library's
> >>> documentation. This is preferred over inventing new text for the
> >>> documentation, the meaning of which could deviate from the canonical version
> >>> in the Twitter API specification.
>
> >>> Potential concern: Without a copyright license, implementors may not be
> >>> permitted to use or reuse the Twitter API specification text in third-party
> >>> library documentation.
>
> >>> Current state: While the Twitter API specification itself doesn't
> >>> mention copyright, the Twitter Terms of Service (http://twitter.com/tos) state:
> >>> "The Services are protected by copyright, trademark, and other laws of both
> >>> the United States and foreign countries," which could reasonably be
> >>> interpreted to apply to the Twitter API service as well.
>
> >>> Possible desired outcome: The Twitter API specification is made
> >>> available under a permissive and derivative works-friendly copyright
> >>> license, such as the Creative Commons BY or BY-SA license.
>
> >>> *Trademark*
>
> >>> Question: Under what terms may third-party library and application
> >>> developers use the various registered service marks of Twitter, Inc?
>
> >>> Example use case: Third-party library authors would like to use the
> >>> words "twitter", "tweet", "retweet" (all live service marks of Twitter, Inc)
> >>> in their libraries. This is preferred over third-party library authors
> >>> inventing new terms for API methods such as "retweet".
>
> >>> Potential concern: Without terms that specify where and how the various
> >>> registered marks can be used, third-party library implementors may or may
> >>> not be permitted to use terms such as "twitter", "tweet", "retweet", etc.,
> >>> in their libraries.
>
> >>> Current state: The Twitter Terms of Service (http://twitter.com/tos)
> >>> appear to prohibit such use: "Nothing in the Terms gives you a right to use
> >>> the Twitter name or any of the Twitter trademarks, logos, domain names, and
> >>> other distinctive brand features."
>
> >>> Possible desired outcome: Twitter publishes acceptable-use guidelines
> >>> for registered marks in third-party libraries and third-party applications.
>
> >>> *Patent*