It appears that the "non-transferable, non-sublicensable" restriction in the Microsoft/IBM/Verisign license is one of the main problems (among other things -- see what killed sender-ID in Apache at http://www.apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html) (By the way, I see the same type of license on BPEL -- oh no) -- Marty Marty Humphrey Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science University of Virginia
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Tom Maguire Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 12:19 PM To: Steve Loughran Cc: davanum@gmail.com; ogsa-wg; owner-ogsa-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-wg] Profile definition v13
It is unclear to me after reading through the threads what is the license issue.
Tom
Freys Law: Every 5 years the number of architecture components double and the ability to comprehend them halves
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. Antoine de Saint-Exupery
T o m M a g u i r e
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Steve Loughran <steve_loughran@h pl.hp.com> To Sent by: ogsa-wg <ogsa-wg@gridforum.org> owner-ogsa-wg@ggf cc .org davanum@gmail.com Subject Re: [ogsa-wg] Profile definition 06/23/2005 08:23 v13 AM
Andreas Savva wrote:
I've uploaded v13 of the Profile definition. This includes a lot of edits from Jem and from the review done in the last (yesterday) call.
https://forge.gridforum.org/projects/ogsa-wg/document/draft-ggf-ogsa- profile-definition/en/13
One little troublespot with the profile is that unless IBM and Microsoft are willing to adapt their IPR licensing policy for WSSecurity, there may shortly not be any functional open source WS-Security implementations
the summary of the current state is:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=111894292828449&w=2
and the licenses in question are
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/standards/ http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/977Q/2112.shtml
Unless these two vendors come to an amenable position, there isn't going to be an apache implementation (and that includes an end to WSS4J), which is going to prevent it from entering the 'community' section, or being broadly used.
Now, who was planning on using WSS4J in their products?
-steve