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?)
There's no such thing as a GPL patent license. The FSF has a longstanding
anti-patent policy, after all.
What would be the advantage
to anyone of demanding license changes for obsolete code?
Yes, http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/license/patentlicense1-2.html 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.
The IPR refers to both the GPL and the patent license. The patent license
is fine, the typo in the header and the dead link have been there for four
years and aren't important, since this is a document for lawyers to read,
not code. Really, the GPL only refers to the Sourceforge code, and nobody
cares about that. We should advance DKIM to draft standard now.
R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html