-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Intellectual Property concern wrt. SD-JWT examples #269
Comments
Speaking as an Editor of some of the specifications in the VCWG, yes, I am concerned. The content seemed questionable when I saw it, but assumed the Editors of that specification had cleared all the necessary IP hurdles to include that markup.
I had presumed that these examples were using things that were cleared by the Editors of that document and/or approved by or worked on at IETF. I believe one of the former Editors added that markup to the document w/o much of a discussion in the group and the current Editors took over the document w/o the sort of warning you're providing. It looks like we need to have a discussion about using markup/content that does not have clear IP protections wrt. SD-JWT examples. At the very least, we need to:
|
The software in question used to generate the examples - the Open Wallet Foundation Python SD-JWT implementation at https://github.com/openwallet-foundation-labs/sd-jwt-python - uses the Apache 2.0 license. The point of that license is to enable anyone to freely use the software for any purpose - which I believe addresses any intellectual property question. A separate point is that the purpose of the YAML should be explained, which @bc-pi correctly points out. How about this language, along lines privately proposed by @OR13, as a starting point?
|
Why are we using a bespoke domain-specific language to describe these properties in the specification? |
I know that YAML is a superset of JSON but, largely, I see YAML as (for many) a more readable alternative to JSON. Isn't it possible to express everything in JSON, to be in line with the rest of the specifications? |
IANAL but IMHO the IPR question is not that clean - the Apache 2.0 license requires preservation of copyright and license notices, which clearly hasn't happened here. |
That's a good question. That bespoke domain-specific language by @danielfett is quite nice for it's intended purpose but is wholly inappropriate for use in a specification like this. |
Not easily, as here a YAML feature is used that JSON doesn't support (adding a type to a key). |
@bc-pi wrote (on the VCWG mailing list:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: