In
<D96522A138F4D4479CB5F7F583B98F0552F9D5(_at_)df-chewy-msg(_dot_)exchange(_dot_)corp(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
"Harry Katz" <hkatz(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> writes:
On Friday, July 16, 2004 11:24 AM, mxcomp(_at_)brycer(_dot_)com wrote
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, william(at)elan.net wrote:
Lets wait until Microsoft comes up with explanation about patent
claims,
Perhaps an indication from MS regarding when the WG might
expect a response would be appreciated by all.
Thanks Bryce. I am drafting an FAQ to answer the questions that have
been raised.
Harry:
I really hope that an FAQ is not neccessary. Any license that causes
questions to be frequently asked is almost certainly a license that
should be rejected by this working group.
Really, there are only two questions that need to be answered:
1) Will MicroSoft do whatever is needed in order to make sure that
their IPR license will not be burdensome to any major
MTA/spamfilter? This would need to include such things as the GPL
(needed by Exim) and others open source license, such as the
Postfix license.
2) Will MicroSoft do whatever is needed in order to make sure that
this is resolved within the next week?
If the answer to either of these questions is "no", or if we can't get
answers to these questions very quickly, I think this working group
needs to table the PRA until the next round of RFCs.
Right now, I think it is unlikely that any proposal with the current
PRA IPR license will pass the WG last call, and will almost certainly
be killed during the IETF last call.
Instead, we should proceed with other proposals, such as the
SPF-classic, DMP, and/or CSV RFCs. (The first two are supposed to
have been submitted as an experimental RFC.)
As I'm sure you can appreciate, this needs review and
approval by attorneys (plural) and other folk here. I hope to be able
to publish this FAQ to the list within the next few days.
I hope that everyone here realizes that people like Harry, Jim, and
Bob do not control the MS lawyers (or most other parts of MicroSoft,
for that matter). I, for one, am not at all surprised that such
things need to be reviewed and I can appreciate any frustration on
your part with having to act as a go-between for this WG and the MS
lawyers.
I understand and appreciate the questions people have been asking. Let
me just say at this point that our intent is to contribute our IP to
this working group and to encourage widespread implementation and
adoption. I very much appreciate everyone's patience while I gather the
answers to your questions.
I have understood that it was at least Harry's and Jim's intent to
solve this problem since the dinner meeting we had during the interim
meeting.
This, unfortunately, doesn't change much. It is my understanding that
MS lawyers have been in contact with at least the lawyer from the Open
Source Initiative and the FSF for about 6 weeks now. I think we have
shown a great deal of patience, but this WG is supposed to have a last
call this month and time has basically run out.
This lack of public progress on this issue has caused an uproar that
will only get worse. If anyone thinks it is bad now, just imagine
what things will be like if this WG advances the current PRA license
and this news hits slashdot. We may never get anything done ever
again.
-wayne