I'm forwarding a thread I had started on spf-private to spf-discuss
I had first posted this message to spf-private, in order to allow folks
there to feel comfortable shooting this down completely, and in private
even, if they objected to that extent.
Since then it was suggested that this conversation go to spf-discuss, so
I'm forwarding along the entire thread.
I've updated the url since the conversation. The version of the
standards mentioned below and the version Julian had responded to on
spf-private is now at
http://www.openpatents.org/certification_mark_standards_v0.04.html .
And as a side note, since then, Scott has placed the mark at
http://www.kitterman.com/spf/source.html
http://www.controlledmail.com/
http://www.kitterman.com/spf/source.html
(I appreciate Scott's willingness to use the mark.)
And that may be enough, assumming these examples are accepted as meeting
uspto requirements. But it's better to have more examples than just
enough or too few, so..
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:56:19PM -0400, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
> I'm right at the last minute and at a deadline related to a US
> application for a certification mark on "Open Patent".
>
> This is all part of a project of mine (anyone want to help with
> it? :-) ) where one of the main goals is to end up with a workable
> patent license that operates for patents similarly to how the GPL
> works for software.
>
> Related to all this is the notion that the certification mark
> "Open Patent" can be applied to products/services that are licensed in a
> certain rather friendly way. (Obviously with goods and services
> for which this other patent license is used, but it's not just limited
> to that one license, just as code can be licensed under a copyright
> license other than the GPL and still be considered to be "Free
> Software", even by the FSF.)
>
> In any event, it happens that Open Source/Free Software code would be
> compatible with this "Open Patent" certification mark in many cases.
>
> I have the standards at
> http://www.openpatents.org/certification_mark_standards.html
> at the moment.
>
> And what I'm *really* needing is to show the mark in-use. (That's the
> timing deadline I'm right at.)
>
> I'm asking Scott about doing so on his website for some of his code and
> online record testers.
>
> I also want to ask if there would be any objection to using the mark in
> a couple pages on the openspf.org site. Specifically doing these
> changes:
>
> Firstly, for http://www.openspf.org/Software , I would suggest/request a
> change to the following headings:
>
> Changing:
> =======================
> [[##postfix-policyd-spf-perl]] postfix-policyd-spf-perl
> =======================
> to:
> =======================
> [[##postfix-policyd-spf-perl]] postfix-policyd-spf-perl - An
> [[http://openpatents.org/|Open Patent™]] program
> =======================
>
> And changing
> =======================
> [[##python-postfix-policyd-spf]] python-postfix-policyd-spf
> =======================
> to
> =======================
> [[##python-postfix-policyd-spf]] python-postfix-policyd-spf -
> An [[http://openpatents.org/|Open Patent™]] program
> =======================
>
> Secondly, in http://www.openspf.org/Tools , I would suggest/request
> Changing:
>
> =======================
> It uses the [[http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi/pyspf|Python SPF
> ''(pySPF)'' library]], which is fully compliant with the
> [[Specifications|SPF specification]]. MTA services for this test are
> provided by ''[[http://www.controlledmail.com|Controlled
> Mail]]''.</wiki>
> =======================
>
> to:
>
> =======================
> It uses the [[http://openpatents.org/|Open Patent™]]
> [[http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi/pyspf|Python SPF
> ''(pySPF)'' library]], which is fully compliant with the
> [[Specifications|SPF specification]]. MTA services for this test are
> provided by ''[[http://www.controlledmail.com|Controlled
> Mail]]''.
>
> This is an [[http://openpatents.org/|Open Patent™]] service.
> </wiki>
> =======================
>
>
> Would these changes be okay with folks?
>
> --
> Mark Shewmaker
> mark@primefactor.com
> 770-933-3250
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
I had first posted this message to spf-private, in order to allow folks
there to feel comfortable shooting this down completely, and in private
even, if they objected to that extent.
Since then it was suggested that this conversation go to spf-discuss, so
I'm forwarding along the entire thread.
I've updated the url since the conversation. The version of the
standards mentioned below and the version Julian had responded to on
spf-private is now at
http://www.openpatents.org/certification_mark_standards_v0.04.html .
And as a side note, since then, Scott has placed the mark at
http://www.kitterman.com/spf/source.html
http://www.controlledmail.com/
http://www.kitterman.com/spf/source.html
(I appreciate Scott's willingness to use the mark.)
And that may be enough, assumming these examples are accepted as meeting
uspto requirements. But it's better to have more examples than just
enough or too few, so..
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:56:19PM -0400, Mark Shewmaker wrote:
> I'm right at the last minute and at a deadline related to a US
> application for a certification mark on "Open Patent".
>
> This is all part of a project of mine (anyone want to help with
> it? :-) ) where one of the main goals is to end up with a workable
> patent license that operates for patents similarly to how the GPL
> works for software.
>
> Related to all this is the notion that the certification mark
> "Open Patent" can be applied to products/services that are licensed in a
> certain rather friendly way. (Obviously with goods and services
> for which this other patent license is used, but it's not just limited
> to that one license, just as code can be licensed under a copyright
> license other than the GPL and still be considered to be "Free
> Software", even by the FSF.)
>
> In any event, it happens that Open Source/Free Software code would be
> compatible with this "Open Patent" certification mark in many cases.
>
> I have the standards at
> http://www.openpatents.org/certification_mark_standards.html
> at the moment.
>
> And what I'm *really* needing is to show the mark in-use. (That's the
> timing deadline I'm right at.)
>
> I'm asking Scott about doing so on his website for some of his code and
> online record testers.
>
> I also want to ask if there would be any objection to using the mark in
> a couple pages on the openspf.org site. Specifically doing these
> changes:
>
> Firstly, for http://www.openspf.org/Software , I would suggest/request a
> change to the following headings:
>
> Changing:
> =======================
> [[##postfix-policyd-spf-perl]] postfix-policyd-spf-perl
> =======================
> to:
> =======================
> [[##postfix-policyd-spf-perl]] postfix-policyd-spf-perl - An
> [[http://openpatents.org/|Open Patent™]] program
> =======================
>
> And changing
> =======================
> [[##python-postfix-policyd-spf]] python-postfix-policyd-spf
> =======================
> to
> =======================
> [[##python-postfix-policyd-spf]] python-postfix-policyd-spf -
> An [[http://openpatents.org/|Open Patent™]] program
> =======================
>
> Secondly, in http://www.openspf.org/Tools , I would suggest/request
> Changing:
>
> =======================
> It uses the [[http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi/pyspf|Python SPF
> ''(pySPF)'' library]], which is fully compliant with the
> [[Specifications|SPF specification]]. MTA services for this test are
> provided by ''[[http://www.controlledmail.com|Controlled
> Mail]]''.</wiki>
> =======================
>
> to:
>
> =======================
> It uses the [[http://openpatents.org/|Open Patent™]]
> [[http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi/pyspf|Python SPF
> ''(pySPF)'' library]], which is fully compliant with the
> [[Specifications|SPF specification]]. MTA services for this test are
> provided by ''[[http://www.controlledmail.com|Controlled
> Mail]]''.
>
> This is an [[http://openpatents.org/|Open Patent™]] service.
> </wiki>
> =======================
>
>
> Would these changes be okay with folks?
>
> --
> Mark Shewmaker
> mark@primefactor.com
> 770-933-3250
-------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=735
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com