OWF is interesting. I don't know if Twitter would adopt it but I would like to hear their thoughts on it.
Abraham On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 18:02, Chris Messina <chris.mess...@gmail.com>wrote: > Actually, NOW would be the time to contribute feedback to the OWF, > since there's a good amount of momentum converging on finalizing the > various agreements that the OWF will be offering. > > Changing the licenses once they're set won't be easy — since the point > of the agreement is to codify a specific and particular understanding > of the ownership model (or non-ownership desire) of a group of > implementors. > > The first agreement is here: > > http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/agreement/ > > Meanwhile, feedback should be submitted here: > > http://groups.google.com/group/open-web-legal-drafting > > Chris > > On Jan 24, 2:36 am, Jesse Stay <jesses...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think the OWF agreement is an excellent idea - I'd love to see Twitter > > join in that agreement with its developers. If Twitter has concerns with > it > > I'd love to see them get involved in the OWF discussions and perhaps the > > agreement could be modified to meet Twitter's needs. Why reinvent the > > wheel? > > > > Jesse > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 6:28 PM, DeWitt Clinton <dclin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Thanks for the update, Ryan. And thanks for the compliment on the > Google > > > Code policies page -- that page was one of the first things I launched > at > > > Google back when we were being asked the exact same questions. > > > > > We also added patent licences, which follow this general format: > > > > > http://code.google.com/apis/gdata/patent-license.html > > > > > Granted, that license is maybe even more liberal than most implementors > > > require. Also, that was before we had a reusable patent agreement, > such as > > > the OWFa:http://openwebfoundation.org/legal/agreement/. If I did > > > something new outside Google I'd probably go the OWF route now. > > > > > Trademark is trickier. I'm not sure we've quite nailed it yet at > Google, > > > actually. But the basic framework might be a statement that enumerates > > > specific marks and lists specific appropriate usages. You can always > add to > > > that list over time, and this would protect Twitter's rights in the > cases > > > you haven't anticipated yet. > > > > > Thanks again for pushing this forward. Cheers, > > > > > -DeWitt > > > > > On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Ryan Sarver <rsar...@twitter.com> > wrote: > > > > >> DeWitt, > > > > >> Thanks for the serious patience on this thread. We're constantly > trying to > > >> adapt to the needs of the developer community, and you're right that > we > > >> haven't published guidelines around use of the Twitter API > specifications. > > >> But, we are working on it and I wanted to share some of the thought > that > > >> will help drive the policy. > > > > >> What we do know is that there is a clear need for a flexible, friendly > and > > >> responsible policy. Policies such as this one ( > > >>http://code.google.com/policies.html#restrictions) are a good start, > and > > >> I can share some principles we'd like to live by. CC-BY should apply > to a > > >> lot of the tools we release. You should be able to copy, modify and > make > > >> derivatives of our specifications (with attribution). We shouldn't > throw > > >> arbitrary roadblocks in your way, such as preventing you from naming a > > >> library "tweet." And last, we shouldn't pester you for utilizing our > patents > > >> underlying these specifications. > > > > >> These are flexible and friendly principles, and in exchange we ask the > > >> development community to act responsibly. For example, naming a > library > > >> "twitter" is one thing. Naming your application "twitter" is quite > another. > > > > >> We hear you loud and clear, so please bear with us as we translate > these > > >> principles into official policy. > > > > >> Thanks again for your patience and interest :) > > > > >> 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 > -- Abraham Williams | Community Advocate | http://abrah.am Project | Out Loud | http://outloud.labs.poseurtech.com This email is: [ ] shareable [x] ask first [ ] private.
