Great, thank you, Ryan.  Looking forward to it.

Please let me know on or off list if there is anything I can do to help.

Cheers,

-DeWitt

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Ryan Sarver <rsar...@twitter.com> wrote:

> DeWitt,
>
> Thanks for the email. These are all great questions and I want to make
> sure I get all the appropriate answers for you and other people on the
> thread so it's clear and transparent. Let me work internally to make
> sure we get answers to these and get back to you.
>
> The more general answer is that we are working on this as we speak, so
> there should be some more clarity in the near future regardless of
> this thread. Thanks for the interest and support.
>
> Best, Ryan
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 9:12 AM, DeWitt Clinton <dclin...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > I recently received a request to implement the "retweet" api calls in the
> > python-twitter and java-twitter libraries, but before I proceed I was
> hoping
> > for a bit of clarification around the licensing terms for the Twitter
> API.
> > My layman's understanding is that without explicit terms there are
> > relatively few rights offered by default regarding a specification.  In
> > particular, I have a few questions about copyright, trademark, and
> patents
> > rights being offered to implementors of the Twitter API.  My longstanding
> > sense is that Twitter has indicated the spirit of offering the API under
> > generally permissive usage rights, so hopefully this thread can move the
> > discussion forward a bit and perhaps turn that spirit into something more
> > formal.
> >
> > Copyright
> > Question: Under what terms may third-party library and application
> > developers use the text and images associated with the Twitter API
> > specification?
> > Example use case:  Third-party library developers would like to copy
> and/or
> > modify the text of the Twitter API specification in the library's
> > documentation.  This is preferred over inventing new text for the
> > documentation, the meaning of which could deviate from the canonical
> version
> > in the Twitter API specification.
> > Potential concern:  Without a copyright license, implementors may not be
> > permitted to use or reuse the Twitter API specification text in
> third-party
> > library documentation.
> > Current state:  While the Twitter API specification itself doesn't
> mention
> > copyright, the Twitter Terms of Service (http://twitter.com/tos) state:
> "The
> > Services are protected by copyright, trademark, and other laws of both
> the
> > United States and foreign countries," which could reasonably be
> interpreted
> > to apply to the Twitter API service as well.
> > Possible desired outcome:  The Twitter API specification is made
> available
> > under a permissive and derivative works-friendly copyright license, such
> as
> > the Creative Commons BY or BY-SA license.
> >
> > Trademark
> > Question: Under what terms may third-party library and application
> > developers use the various registered service marks of Twitter, Inc?
> > Example use case:  Third-party library authors would like to use the
> words
> > "twitter", "tweet", "retweet" (all live service marks of Twitter, Inc) in
> > their libraries.  This is preferred over third-party library authors
> > inventing new terms for API methods such as "retweet".
> > Potential concern: Without terms that specify where and how the various
> > registered marks can be used, third-party library implementors may or may
> > not be permitted to use terms such as "twitter", "tweet", "retweet",
> etc.,
> > in their libraries.
> > Current state:  The Twitter Terms of Service (http://twitter.com/tos)
> appear
> > to prohibit such use: "Nothing in the Terms gives you a right to use the
> > Twitter name or any of the Twitter trademarks, logos, domain names, and
> > other distinctive brand features."
> > Possible desired outcome:  Twitter publishes acceptable-use guidelines
> for
> > registered marks in third-party libraries and third-party applications.
> >
> > Patent
> > Question:  Under what terms may third-party library and application
> > developers make use of current or future patent claims made by Twitter,
> Inc?
> > Example use cases:  A third-party developer may wish to implement an
> > independent service that conforms to the Twitter API method signatures,
> or a
> > third-party developer may wish to implement a library that implements
> > portions of the Twitter API on the client.
> > Potential concern:  Without terms that specify how third-party developers
> > may use patent claims (if any) made by Twitter, Inc, implementors assume
> the
> > risk of potentially infringing on current or future claims made by
> Twitter.
> > Current state:  Twitter (to my knowledge) has made no statement regarding
> > patent claims with respect to implementations of the Twitter API.
> > Possible desired outcome:  The Twitter API specification is made
> available
> > under a patent agreement, such as the Open Web Foundation Agreement
> > (http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/), or a similarly permissive
> agreement,
> > such as the Microsoft Open Specification Promise
> > (http://www.microsoft.com/Interop/osp/) or a Google-style patent license
> > (http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/patent-license.html).
> >
> > ...
> > I realize that these are meaty (and potentially legally sensitive)
> questions
> > of course, and likely ones that are not easily answered in a public
> forum.
> >  However, any feedback from the team would certainly be appreciated.
> > The fact that people are even thinking about these types of questions is
> a
> > good thing, both for open specification development in general, but also
> > because it shows how successful and important the Twitter API is today.
>  So
> > again, continued success with the API, and I look forward to hearing more
> > from the team.
> > -DeWitt
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to