-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of
Hallam-Baker,
Phillip
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 10:32 AM
To: 'Mark Shewmaker'; IETF MARID List
Subject: RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License
This patent license is incompatible with the Open Source
Definition, the
Free Software Definition, the Debian Free Software
Guidelines, and the
GPL and LGPL licenses specifically.
I disagree. I believe that the fundamental error made by the author
is to confuse a patent use license with a copyright distribution
license.
Irrelevant when the patent is used to control the software that would otherwise
be distributed under
the copyright distribution.
A patent is not a source code. A patent does not do anything on
its own. Source code does. Patents are a completely different form of
intellectual property.
True, but if the patent is used to control the source code, the difference is
trivial and
irrelevant.
The license terms that are appropriate for a standard are completely
different from those that are appropriate for an application.
IFF the license for the standard is not used to exert control over the
application. The license
described DOES exert control over the application, via source revisions and
licensing redistribution
thereof.
1. fixing the license to address all its problems (described in
detail below),
I believe that this has been achieved.
You are incorrect. (see above and below)
1. Issue:
======
Whatever IPR rights you might obtain for yourself
won't extend to everyone who gets a copy of your code.
o Violates OSD #7, DFSG #7
| Distribution of License
|
| The rights attached to the program must apply to
all to whom
| the program is redistributed without the need for execution
| of an additional license by those parties.
TO THE PROGRAM
So what? A standard is irrelevant if there is no program that implements it.
o Fails Dissident test.
| The Dissident test.
|
| Consider a dissident in a totalitarian state who wishes to
| share a modified bit of software with fellow
dissidents, but
| does not wish to reveal the identity of the modifier, or
I find this use of language pretty offensive. I have spent quite a bit
of time with real dissidents in real totalitarian states.
Stick to the facts please. It was a concise and well illustrated example.
Bullying a valid and
well thought expression of opinion does not accomplish anything.
o Violates Freedom #2
| The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your
| neighbor
You can redistribute copies of the software to your neighbor,
they can
modify them.
The only party that can't use the technology is someone who is making
an IP claim over it. So if there was a company called OCS who decided
to sue Microsoft over the use of their technology in SenderID, they
could not obtain a license.
Huh? As indicated in a previous thread channel partners of sendmail would have
to sign the license,
only because they change the source code, nothing to do with if the have an IP
claim or not.
o Violates Freedom #3
| The freedom to improve the program, and release your
| improvements to the public, so that the whole community
| benefits
Actually you can, read it.
Free means "without restriction". Having to sign a license is NOT "without
restriction" hence not
FREE
2. Issue:
======
Whatever Microsoft's unspecified IPR supposedly covers,
you can't do anything with it except Sender-ID-ish things.
Any claims that do not relate to Sender-ID are by definition
irrelevant to this working group.
But the license issue *is* relevant.
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085