On 02/28/2013 08:21 PM, Oleg Gryb wrote:
> Dear OAuth WG and Chairs,
>
> Can somebody please comment the Certicom's disclosure below? If the
> purpose of this disclosure is to inform us that JWT can be potentially
> a subject of royalties and other possible legal actions, the value of
> adopting JWT in the scope of OAuth 2.0 IETF standard would definitely
> diminish and if this is the case shouldn't we consider replacing it
> with something similar, but different, which would not be a subject of
> the future possible litigation?
>
> I'm not a lawyer and might not understand the statement below
> correctly, so please let me know if/where I'm wrong. Please keep in
> mind also that the popularity of JWT is growing fast along with the
> implementations, so we need to do something quickly.
>
I'm curious too.
Skimming through the summaries on google patents of the cited patents I
couldn't immediately see
the relationship with JWTs but then again I'm not a patent lawyer (nor
do I play one on the net).
Cheers Leif
_______________________________________________
OAuth mailing list
OAuth@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/oauth
