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 > > > > > > > > >