It’s just data

Irrevocable Promise

DeWitt Clinton: what is important is how a company licenses a particular technology, regardless of their patent holdings.  As Brett points out in the comments, PSHB is covered under the OWFa, which was signed by all the many contributors.

It seems extremely odd to me that the way to discover the patent policy of the PSHB protocol is by reading about it in the comments on someone elses blog. IANAL, but I can’t imagine that sort of thing is legally binding. If PSHB is really covered under the OWFa license, why wouldn’t they want to include a statement to that effect on the actual spec document? They’re not doing themselves any favours by keeping that information hidden. Or am I just looking in the wrong place?

Posted by James Holderness at

In keeping with Hanlon’s razor, if there’s sin there, it’s likely to be a sin of omission rather commission.

Posted by Bob Aman at

I’ll be sure make it more clear in the 0.4 version of the spec document. Thanks.

Posted by Brett Slatkin at

Add your comment