Le jeudi 15 Juillet 2004 02:24, Andrew Newton a écrit :
Can you please explain the legal technicalities that lead you to
believe that the license for Caller-ID inhibits (a) development and/or
(b) distribution of open source software, and especially the GPL, under
such license?
As a preamble, please note that I am no lawyer, and a competent lawyer would
probably be necessary to understand all this better.
That said, in his message written today at 04:43:19 UTC, Wayne expressed my
own concerns very precisely, and I share all of the points that he made.
Assuming Microsoft will impose for Sender-ID (or any subpart of it) the
license that their webpage at
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spam_senderid.mspx currently
points to, which actually is the license for Caller-ID gotten from their site
at
http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/0/a/60a02573-3c00-4ee1-856b-afa39c020a95/callerid_license.pdf
,
then this license states :
§ 2.1: That the license granted for "making, using [and] distributing object
code versions of Licensed Implementations", "only as incorporated into
Licensed Products" is "nontransferable, non-sublicenseable [and] personal".
§ 2.2 makes the same provisions for source code distribution, plus request
that the license under which the source code is distributed would include a
supplementary notice "and does not include any other terms that are
inconsistent with, or would prohibit [the said notice]"
§ 4.3 repeats this again
§ 6.3 states that, to benefit from this royalty-free license, somebody needs
to return a signed, written copy of the said license to MS either by fax or
snail-mail.
In my understanding, all these provisions prohibit anybody who wouldn't have
signed the MS license to redistribute a software implementing Sender-ID
either in object or source code in any way.
This would mean that any "Free Software" MTA or antispam incoporating
Sender-ID could not anymore be freely redistributed, either via FTP or
included into, let's says, Linux or *BSD distributions, without each
distributor having previously signed the MS license and sent it back by fax
or snail-mail.
If you consider the number of different softwares and modules that any Free
Software distribution usually includes, and the number or distributors and
FTP or mirror download sites that each of them has, it is simply not
imaginable that any "not-for profit" redistributor or contributor would have
to sign dozens of such licenses, so requiring such a license will certainly
prohibit any software including Sender-ID to be included into Free Software
distributions, or further modified, improved or completed by benevolent
individuals, and this would make any software including Send-ID to slip out
of the Free Software community.
Now let's take a look at Free Software licenses.
The General Public License (GPL Version 2) says :
<<
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.
[...]
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
parties under the terms of this License.
[...]
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
[...]
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above [...]
[...]
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. [...]
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all.
[...]
This makes clear that the license that Microsoft requires for Sender-ID is
incompatible with the GPL, and as such, prohibits incoporating Sender-ID in
any GPL MTA or antispam software.
Now let's take a look at "IBM PUBLIC LICENSE VERSION 1.0 - SECURE MAILER", the
license that governs the very popular and widely used Postfix MTA :
<<
1. DEFINITIONS
"Contribution" means:
a) in the case of International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM"),
the Original Program, and
b) in the case of each Contributor,
i) changes to the Program, and
ii) additions to the Program;
where such changes and/or additions to the Program originate
from and are distributed by that particular Contributor.
A Contribution 'originates' from a Contributor if it was added
to the Program by such Contributor itself or anyone acting on
such Contributor's behalf.
[...]
2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
a) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby
grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright
license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display,
publicly perform, distribute and sublicense the Contribution of such
Contributor, if any, and such derivative works, in source code and
object code form.
b) Subject to the terms of this Agreement, each Contributor hereby
grants Recipient a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent
license under Licensed Patents to make, use, sell, offer to sell,
import and otherwise transfer the Contribution of such Contributor,
if any, in source code and object code form. This patent license
shall apply to the combination of the Contribution and the Program
if, at the time the Contribution is added by the Contributor, such
addition of the Contribution causes such combination to be covered
by the Licensed Patents. [...]
3. REQUIREMENTS
[...]
When the Program is made available in source code form:
a) it must be made available under this Agreement; and
b) a copy of this Agreement must be included with each copy of the
Program.
In my understanding, this prohibits as well the inclusion of Sender-ID into
Postfix and its further redistribution in source code form, as the MS
Caller-ID license would prohibit the Postfix source code including Sender-ID
to "be made available under this Agreement" any further.
I repeat that IMHO, any protocol to be defined as an IETF standard should be
public domain, free for any party to implement, distribute and use in any
kind of software, regardless to the license that currently governs the
concerned software.
The MS license clearly shows incompatible with this goal, which makes it
unacceptable for considering building a standard upon a protocol that is
encumbered with such a license.
If MS was ready to modify its licensing terms, and allow for anybody receiving
Sender-ID in any form to _automatically_ receive a perpertual, royalty-free
license to use it, implement it, redistribute it, build derivative works from
it, and incoporate it into other works without any changes to said other
works licenses, usage or redistribution rights, then things, of course, would
be different.
--
Michel Bouissou <michel(_at_)bouissou(_dot_)net> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E