"Gordon Fecyk" <gordonf(_at_)pan-am(_dot_)ca> writes:
It's quite clear that the GNU/FSF camp in this list will go to full lengths
to describe how incompatible Microsoft's IPR claims and licensing
requirements are with their precious GPL. It's also clear that Microsoft is
not interested in appeasing this group even though Harry, Jim and Bob have
gone to extreme lengths to accommodate the not-so-extreme groups (*BSD, APL,
MPL, and so forth).
[more flamebait deleted]
Wow, that is one the most hard-core anti-GPL rants I've seen in a long
time, even compared with some of the trolls on slashdot.
If the FSF and "GPL fanatics" were demanding that SenderID *HAD* to be
GPL'ed, then you might have a point. Instead, the problem is that it
Microsoft appears to be demanding that SenderID *CANNOT* be GPL'ed.
As Eric Allman's analysis of the SenderID license shows, even in those
cases where the SenderID license is compatible with other licenses, it
is extremely burdensome.
While some may claim that it isn't that bad to just get one license
signed, that is really in the same league as spammers saying that it
is just one email, you should just hit delete. Many OS distributions
have thousands of packages, and each package could have many
components that, like SenderID, require "just one license". The
advertising clause of the original BSD license was widely rejected
(and now withdrawn by UCB) because of the problems caused if everyone
required the same thing.
Microsoft has *not* "gone to extreme lengths to accommodate the
not-so-extreme groups", their license is much more burdensome than
many other IPR licenses for other RFCs approved by the IETF.
About the only thing I agree with Gordon is that we should "Get On
With It". We need to drop the PRA because of the license and move on
to alternatives that protect the From: header more directly with fewer