-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
| This is the second first time post on this thread.
|
| Licensing issues are being dealt with, your paranoias are irrelevant,
| take it to the IETF IPR forum.
You corporate guys appear to have bunched together in a group and *DO
NOT* appear to want to *HEAR* what the non-corporates think! You may
want to start passing out tin foil hats to the OSS crowd but it is not
paranoia! We are being told repeatedly that the license is going to be
the one M$ put forward for Caller-ID and that's just not realistic now
that CID has been kicked to the curb. Address *THAT* and I suspect most
of us will shut up about this issue.
If I sound irritated it's because I am. "your paranoias are irrelevant"
was uncalled for. If people do not understand they might end up sounding
paranoid but that does not, in any way, minimize the reality of their
concern.
| And BTW GNU would be an entirely unacceptable licensing scheme for
| a patent controlling a protocol standard in any case.
Fine. Then use SPF-Classic which is unencumbered and let's have done
with it. How in the sam hill do you patent something which is
pre-defined in pre-existing RFC's? Sheesh! I did not "PRA" for this! :-)
- --
Chuck Mead
csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com
Chief Tech @ http://moongroup.com - http://anirononline.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFA9++5v6Gjsf2pQ0oRAiZRAJ0WCsgGY5lX14HAGk+HIcNehydKnACggtuj
Vh9zxYMJ0Vhl49AMS0SQOw8=
=KNJl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----