[IETF-IDRM] Fwd: RE: [IDRM] XrML?

[Thomas Hardjono]

>Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:17:49 -0700
>From: Fabien Petitcolas <fabienpe@microsoft.com>
>Subject: RE: [IDRM] XrML?
>To: Mark Baugher <mbaugher@cisco.com>, "J. Chong" <cnc99r@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>Cc: ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com
>Thread-Topic: [IDRM] XrML?
>Thread-Index: AcDNkR0h16P1or5CSli+AfjFX2J5MQO1LTzw
>X-MS-Has-Attach:
>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>List-Owner: <mailto:ietf-idrm-help@lists.elistx.com>
>List-Post: <mailto:ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com>
>List-Subscribe: <mailto:ietf-idrm-request@lists.elistx.com?body=subscribe>
>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-idrm-request@lists.elistx.com?body=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://lists.elistx.com/archives/ietf-idrm>
>List-Help: <http://lists.elistx.com/elists/admin_email.shtml>,
>  <mailto:ietf-idrm-request@lists.elistx.com?body=help>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 May 2001 09:17:50.0371 (UTC)
>  FILETIME=[E9DD8F30:01C0DD1F]
>
>Dear Mark,
>
>After asking to people who are better informed than me, it looks like
>you may have misread the ContentGuard Agreement:
>
>"While ContentGuard does get rights to derivative improvements in XrML
>(as it needs to to carry on the standard), the licensees are free to use
>any version of XrML.  However, after a period of time, if they do not
>support the latest version of XrML, they have to stop CALLING their
>implementation XrML or implying that it is XrML compliant."
>
>Hope this helps,
>
>Fabien
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Baugher [mailto:mbaugher@cisco.com]
>Sent: Wednesday 25 April 2001 15:07
>To: J. Chong
>Cc: ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com
>Subject: Re: [IDRM] XrML?
>
>Hi
>    I can only relate my personal experience here.  Content Guard
>requires
>people to sign a license to look at XrML, or at least they did; I have
>not
>checked recently to see if this has changed.  The license seems to
>grant Content Guard a perpetual license to use any and all derivatives
>but only grants the person signing the license rights to use the
>current version of XrML.  At least this was the license that I read
>last year and I'm not a lawyer.  So I sent a note to them asking about
>this and participation in the group that determines the direction of
>XrML in the future.  I got no reply to that note.  I think that its
>predecessor, DPRL, is pretty extensive and compares favorable
>to ODRL, though I have not done any extensive analysis of these
>languages.  I'm hoping that this work will be undertaken by W3C.
>
>Mark
>
>At 02:52 PM 4/25/2001 +0100, J. Chong wrote:
> >Dear Mark,
> >
> >         Thanks for your reply and help. Do you mind telling me what
>you
> >think about XrML (www.xrml.org)? Thanks.
> >
> >On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Mark Baugher wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >     There is no standard rights management language yet.  There is
>only
> > > one that I am aware of that is intended to be an "open-standard"
>language
> > > and that is ODRL, Open Digital Rights Language.  Following the W3C
> > > meeting at Inria earlier in the year, the Workshop on Digital
>Rights,
> > > I am expecting some initiative to start in the W3C.
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > At 12:46 PM 4/25/2001 +0100, J. Chong wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >         I am currently working with DRM. I wish to know whether
>there
> > is a
> > > >standard language (which is recognized by W3C) which is used to
>describe
> > > >and define the rights on a digital content. For example, I came
>across
> > > >XrML (www.xrml.org), and I am wondering what is the status of XrML
>in
> > > >W3C. Please help. Thanks.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Best regards,
> > > >Jordan CN CHONG
> > >
> > >
> >
> >Best regards,
> >Jordan CN CHONG