[oauth] Re: IPR contribution policy
Are we discussing someone's code or the spec? If the spec is what's meant, then the OWF draft may well collide in some (usally arcance) respect with the IETF's processes (which like everything in this realm are a PITA). I would think that changing the IPR status of the spec at this point could muck up formation of an IETF WG and would be undesirable but maybe someone's already checked all that out? S. Chris Messina wrote: We're wanting to adopt the Open Web Foundation contribution license: http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-legal/web/owf-final-specification-agreement---proposed-draft Chris On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Hubert Le Van Gong hubert...@gmail.com mailto:hubert...@gmail.com wrote: What's the IPR policy for contributing to OAuth? I've seen an old thread about an IPR contribution license (http://groups.google.com/group/oauth/browse_thread/thread/c42aefc5abd9b059?pli=1) but it seems it has not yielded a final document. At least I can't see it anywhere on the site - or maybe I missed it. Hubert -- Chris Messina Open Web Advocate factoryjoe.com http://factoryjoe.com // diso-project.org http://diso-project.org // openid.net http://openid.net // vidoop.com http://vidoop.com This email is: [ ] bloggable[X] ask first [ ] private --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups OAuth group. To post to this group, send email to oauth@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to oauth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[oauth] Re: Version Preference
Either of 2 or 3 are fine. (Assuming that option 3 implies that oauth_version=1.1, if not, then 2.) Stephen. Blaine Cook wrote: We need to build some consensus around the version preference. As I see it, there are several options: 1. 1.0 Rev A with no version string change (i.e., oauth_version=1.0) 2. 1.0a (with oauth_version=1.0a) 3. 1.1 Please indicate your support for one of these options, and try to refrain from arguing your case here. The other thread remains open for that purpose. I would especially like to hear from library implementers here, and others who have not voiced their opinions in the other threads. b. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups OAuth group. To post to this group, send email to oauth@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to oauth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[oauth] Re: Interoperability and Backwards Compatibility
Aaron Stone wrote: CC: oa...@googlegroups: If the intention was to retire that list and move it to the IETF list, we have a buy-in problem. Well, I'd reckon keeping both going at least until there is a WG formed would be better. Some IETF WGs also have associated lists that discuss specific implementation and/or deployment issues, so its not that unusual a situation and is ok so long as there's sufficient overlap of the right people. S. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups OAuth group. To post to this group, send email to oauth@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to oauth+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/oauth?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
