3 ms·
> and didn't want to mention that their technology could be compatible with the existing one Really curious for the reason behind that. If they would've mentio
by hobofan 7y ago
> and didn't want to mention that their technology could be compatible with the existing one
Really curious for the reason behind that. If they would've mentioned it there probably would have been quite a bit less of lock-in criticism for the product. But maybe they are also banking on the devs not realizing that they aren't that locked in and have an easy option to move away.
- cmiles74 7y agoI suspect they didn't mention it because they see the lock-in to their product as a feature. Mentioning OpenID might give the impression that Apple would be interested in interoperability (to some degree).
- merb 7y agothey didn't mention it because if they did, they would need to be a member of the openid foundation and pay the 15k$.
- jogux 7y agoThere's no requirement to be to a member of the OpenID Foundation to describe your implementation as OpenID; the trademark rules are here: https://openid.net/intellectual-property/trademark-license/ https://openid.net/intellectual-property/trademark-license/ The main requirement therein I would say is that you can't use OpenID to describe an implementation unless it implements the mandatory-to-implement parts of the relevant protocol specification (and all the specifications are 100% free; e.g. https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html ). That's more about interoperability than anything else.