-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fenton writes:
Dave Crocker wrote:
There are actually two classes of licensing issues here:
- Licensing issues associated with the technology itself, e.g., issues
relating to IPR associated with any of the internet drafts. I consider
these to be somewhat in-scope here, as long as they don't get out of
hand or continuously revisit comments that have already been made.
- Licensing issues associated with a particular implementation. These
should be discussed on a mailing list associated with the particular
implementation, such as dkim-milter-discuss(_at_)sourceforge(_dot_)net(_dot_)
I'd agree with that, and the former was what I was asking about.
http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/license/patentlicense1-1.html
discusses the terms under which the DK specifications may be
licensed by implementors, and I was asking if that will be changing
with DKIM.
If there's a better place for this debate than this list,
that's great -- let me know and I'll take it there.
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFC1qxnMJF5cimLx9ARAqfFAKC9+flZYUgiAJ2PJIsu+ReTDcBj9QCfbI61
TFbQu6kRe7CZj5Y6c4Q3/RU=
=0/o5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----