On 25/Jan/10 17:51, John Levine wrote:
1. Advance DKIM base to Draft Standard
I'd require Yahoo! Inc's IPR to be upgraded to the current GPL release
before that. (See https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/693/)
Also https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/716/ ... how many are they?
The reference to the GPL looks to me like it only covers the old
Sourceforge DK library, which I don't think anyone uses any more. The
patent, which is what's important, is covered by a separate license
that Yahoo wrote.
IANAL, but that snippet talks about "Necessary Patent Claims", which
is described as the claims "that would necessarily be infringed by
implementation of the technology". Apparently, that covers generating
a key pair associated with a domain, digitally signing messages, and
the similar claims that the patent consists of; independently of the
code that carries those tasks out.
Even if Yahoo were willing, this would involve negotiations with their
lawyers which always takes a long time.
You understand this stuff far better than I. I'm not even sure of what
it might mean to license a /patent/ under the GPL (perhaps it means
that any implementation released under the GPL is automatically
licensed?) However, IIRC, they made those IPRs in order to allow the
standardization process. By the same logic, a further standardization
round implies further IPRs. Since GPLv3 has been released meanwhile,
the new IPRs should consider its current version, shouldn't they?
What would be the advantage
to anyone of demanding license changes for obsolete code?
looks obsolete, because its header title doesn't match the one in the
body, and because its authoritative link doesn't work. However, the
patent itself doesn't seem obsolete to me.
On what grounds would the new charter work?
Thank you for your patience :-)
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to