I support many divisions across North America, most with their own mail
servers. We have a
non-standard or not "off the shelf" MTA deployment. As such, deploying sender
id license would
require much effort that is unacceptable, even if I could convince the powers
that be we don't have
to consult a lawyer before signing. Further, the very nature of the license
appears I may have to
disclose the nature of my "non standard" mta deployment in order to integrate
This is unacceptable.
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
Fax: (416) 441-9085
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Ted
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 6:04 PM
To: Koen Martens; Ryan Ordway
Cc: IETF MARID WG
Subject: Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It
At 11:06 PM +0200 8/25/04, Koen Martens wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 10:35:41AM -0700, Ryan Ordway wrote:
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.
FWIW, my hand is raised. I oppose against an internet
standard that requires a
contract with microsoft to implement.
An important part of the IETF process is that we treat all of
as behaving in good faith. If the license terms offered
for you, please state how the terms impact your development
(Eric's description of the sublicensing issue for Sendmail is
a good example
here, and I encourage you to read it as a potential model).
Stating that the _holder_ of the IPR is the problem, rather
than the _terms_
of the license, is very different. That is contrary to the
principle that we
treat all participants as behaving in good faith. Please
focus on the terms,
not the holder.