Tracking Coverage of the Open Web Foundation Announcement

2 views
Skip to first unread message

David Recordon

unread,
Jul 24, 2008, 7:47:22 PM7/24/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com

Chris Messina

unread,
Jul 24, 2008, 9:51:47 PM7/24/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
Add my post to the stack:


Chris
--
Chris Messina
Citizen-Participant &
Open Source Advocate-at-Large
factoryjoe.com # diso-project.org
citizenagency.com # vidoop.com
This email is: [ ] bloggable [X] ask first [ ] private

Dawn Foster

unread,
Jul 24, 2008, 10:09:44 PM7/24/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com

Steve Ivy

unread,
Jul 24, 2008, 11:35:34 PM7/24/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
Another one:

http://redmonk.net/archives/2008/07/24/web-green-the-open-web-foundation/

--Steve

--
Steve Ivy
http://redmonk.net // http://diso-project.org
This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private

David Recordon

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:51:17 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com

David Recordon

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:54:21 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com

David Recordon

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 4:57:15 AM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com

David Recordon

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 2:05:01 PM7/25/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com

David Recordon

unread,
Jul 27, 2008, 2:07:49 PM7/27/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
Not the best title, but another great piece: http://www.technewsworld.com/story/63945.html

Dennis E. Hamilton

unread,
Jul 28, 2008, 1:18:48 AM7/28/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
Here's one (via Tim O'Reilly):
http://www.links.org/?p=351 (and also http://www.links.org/?p=350)

There's also the Dare Obasanjo piece and the comments on it,
http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/2008/07/26/SomeThoughtsOnTheOpenWebFoundat
ion.aspx

-----Original Message-----
From: David Recordon
http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss/msg/c35df14f1a78caca?hl=en
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 11:08
To: open-web...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Tracking Coverage of the Open Web Foundation Announcement
[ ... including the following compilation of links ...

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/63945.html


http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Open-Web-Foundation-to-Keep-D
ata-Open/

http://www.identitywoman.net/?p=776


http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/07/oscon-open-web-foundation-laun.
html

http://ostatic.com/169545-blog/the-open-web-foundation-is-open-for-business

http://redmonk.net/archives/2008/07/24/web-green-the-open-web-foundation/

http://siliconflorist.com/2008/07/24/open-web-foundation-oscon-2008/

http://joi.ito.com/weblog/2008/07/24/announcing-the.html


http://bobdotnet.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/open-web-foundation-announced-at-o
scon/

http://skypejournal.com/blog/2008/07/open_web_foundation_can_clear.html

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/open_web_foundation_launches_t.php

http://ajaxian.com/archives/open-web-foundation-david-recordon-at-oscon

http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/07/open-web-foundation.html

http://fastwonderblog.com/2008/07/24/announcing-the-open-web-foundation/

http://daveman692.livejournal.com/338898.html

http://kveton.com/blog/2008/07/24/announcing-the-open-web-foundation/


http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/24/open-web-foundation-officially-launches
/


http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/07/oscon-open-web-foundation-laun.
html


[end]

Eran Hammer-Lahav

unread,
Jul 28, 2008, 1:48:09 AM7/28/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
I am not going to directly comment on Dare's post because between his post and comments on FF he repeatedly break rule number one of the OWF: "Don't be a dick". We had amazing discussions with people who disagree with us. This is not one of them.

---

I have lots of respect for the IETF and find it one of the better organizations out there. However, their IPR policy is editors get to do whatever they want - that is, they can choose to include patented contribution that is not free. Some highlights:

* The IETF requires disclosure of all applicable patents or other IPR claims. Their entire process is centered around the fact that anything is allowed as long as you disclose any IPR you are aware of. Disclosure is possible after a spec is published in some cases. In general "Contributing to or participating in IETF discussions about a technology without making required IPR disclosures is a violation of IETF process."

* Contributors may block others from ever changing their work. When the IETF obtains such derivative rights, they are only for IETF use. That is, it is possible to publish specs that are not allowed to be changed as a condition to making a contribution.

* Contributors may put copyright restrictions not allowing anyone by the IETF to reproduce their contribution.

* Under the IETF standards requiring licensing payments are perfectly reasonable as long as they are done "under a license that contains reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions, including a reasonable royalty or other payment"

Let me be clear: there is nothing blocking anyone from publishing a contribution-clean spec under the IETF. This is an important point. But the IETF doesn't help you get there. It is all on the editors to make smart decisions when writing a specification to know that they should reject any such contribution. Also, contributors do not directly promise not to sue you. There are many loopholes possible in the disclosure requirement that opens the door for a company whose employees participated to sue implementer.

What is means is that when you decide to implement an IETF standard, you better read the fine print about what is and isn't licensed and if it is not all royalty-free, call your lawyer. Yes, most standards are published RF, but you get little assurance of not being sued by a contributor for some technicality.

EHL

Scott Wilson

unread,
Jul 28, 2008, 7:32:38 AM7/28/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
I think this one reason why OWF could be complementary to IETF - the
input to the standardisation process can be IPR-cleared. Most of what
would seem to be fit under the "W" part of OWF would seem to be things
that could eventually head to IETF for standardisation - I can
certainly see OpenID 2.0 and oAuth going that way, and this would help
a great deal for adoption within some sectors.

Atom was a very good example of community and formal processes working
well together, with the original community AtomEnabled/Pie work
progressing into IETF based on a community vote. IETF then did a good
job of cleaning up the spec, pruning unnecessary bits and getting the
spec wording cleared up, and doing all this in a relatively rapid
amount of time. As the Atom IETF WG was focussed on finalising rather
than developing the spec, there was little real scope for adding in
potential IPR or licensing problems.

S

> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Open Web Foundation Discussion" group.
> To post to this group, send email to open-web...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to open-web-discu...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-discuss?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>

Dennis E. Hamilton

unread,
Jul 29, 2008, 12:36:07 AM7/29/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
I think the discussion about IETF and rejoinder to Dare Obasanjo's post goes
on a different thread, and I am not continuing from that. I just wanted to
add to David Recordon's great compilation and the contributions that have
been made to it along the way. Here are some more:

Epeus' epigone (Kevin Marks): 2008-07-28:
http://epeus.blogspot.com/2008/07/here-comes-everybody-tummlers-geishas.html
with a sort of aside to Open Web (becoming pop culture, are we?)

Dione Almaer: 2008-07-28:
http://almaer.com/blog/a-second-look-at-dare-on-the-owf

Dione Almaer: 2008-07-23:
http://almaer.com/blog/the-open-web-foundation-apache-for-the-other-stuff

- previously on this thread - - - - - - - - - - -

Here's one (via Tim O'Reilly): Ben Laurie?

Dennis E. Hamilton

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 12:47:04 AM7/30/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
A couple more:

Joe Hodnicki: Law X.0 2008-07-29
http://3lepiphany.typepad.com/3l_epiphany/2008/07/open-web-founda.html

Joe Gregorio: 2008-07-29
http://bitworking.org/news/346/too-inclusive-is-not-a-bug
extending more OWF discussion elements into blogosphere conversation

- added 2008-07-28 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ben Laurie

unread,
Jul 30, 2008, 1:33:11 AM7/30/08
to open-web...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<dennis....@acm.org> wrote:
>
> A couple more:
>
> Joe Hodnicki: Law X.0 2008-07-29
> http://3lepiphany.typepad.com/3l_epiphany/2008/07/open-web-founda.html
>
> Joe Gregorio: 2008-07-29
> http://bitworking.org/news/346/too-inclusive-is-not-a-bug
> extending more OWF discussion elements into blogosphere conversation

Ah, if only the DoS really were just off-topic posting...

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages