-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Ryan Ordway wrote:
| On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 06:30, wayne wrote:
|>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.
| This is the point that those either in favor of
| or ambivalent towards the RFSIPL are missing. People don't
| so much care WHAT license Microsoft conjures up, as long as it
| is not going to be a) burdensome to those implementing and
| distributing software containing their alleged IP and b)
| detrimental to adoption of whatever, if any, standard arises.
|>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.
| And therefore, using previous standards with IPR
| licenses as an excuse to adopt a standard with a much more
| burdensome license starts us back down the slippery slope.
| "Go ahead, drink the kool-aid... other people have done it!"
|>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
| Perhaps a show of hands is in order to see just
| how much of a "minority" those who disapprove of the terms
| of the RFSIPL are? Consider my hand raised.
I also disapprove (and have been for a couple of months at least as the
archives will show).
Chuck Mead <csm(_at_)redhat(_dot_)com>
Instructor II (and resident Postfix bigot), GLS
Disclaimer: "It's Thursday and my name is Locutus of B0rk!"
Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----