See..

SAML IPR statements have been revised to explicit “defensive suspension”

..though don’t forget to also see this following message noting that AOL lead this charge by example, which those of us working behind the scenes to effect this overall posture liberally pointed to..

Re: SAML IPR statements have been revised toexplicit “defensive suspension”

The SSTC/SAML IPR Statements Page is here. Thanks again to all the folks who worked to make this happen!

My previous post on these developments is here.

So, unfortunately for a while now, a few companies have asserted that they hold IP (Intellectual Property, typically in the form of issued patents) that applies to various aspects of SAML. RSA Security is one of these companies, and it even went so far as to “require” those implementing SAML to fill-out a license application form and submit it to them. Thankfully, RSA has now decided to abandon this practice and adopt a “defensive suspension” IP posture with respect to SAML. Hopefully, other companies whose SAML patent statements are not (yet) explicitly of the “defensive suspension” form will also adopt this posture. Such asserted patent statements have been a sticking point with various slices of the open source community, and hopefully this revision will help aid SAML adoption in such communities.