Andy,
Please let me respectfully reply in regard to your message to RMS.
Le lundi 26 Juillet 2004 01:08, Andrew Newton a écrit :
First, I do not think this message says anything that has not already
been stated on this list already. In fact, there have been messages on
this list with a far better description of the legal nature of this
issue than this one.
Richard's message was rather short, to concentrate on the main aspects of the
issue, and give his conclusions, without entering again in the technical and
legal details that have, as you state, already been exposed in detail on this
list.
However, Richard's opinion on the matter is highly respected and weights for a
number of people, me included, he being the leader of the Free Sofware
Community.
I think he was completely in his rights expressing here the general views of
this community regarding the licensing issue of the Sender-ID proposal.
I don't expect Richard to express himself often on this list, much less to
pollute it. So please let him express once for all the valid concerns of the
Free Software Community.
While on the subject of things stated previously on this list:
On Jul 24, 2004, at 3:43 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
I've been expecting to see something like this ever since Gates
started talking about spam. This license is an example of Microsoft's
strategy for killing off free software as an alternative to Windows.
Microsoft first patents something, then incorporates it into a format
or protocol, then tries to make it de rigueur while excluding those it
wishes to exclude. In the absence of resistance, Microsoft has a good
chance of imposing whatever standards it likes. Let us, therefore,
resist it here and now.
We have asked repeatedly that this type of behavior be stopped.
See http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02079.html
You are no exception to the rule. Do not do it again.
I suppose that you refer to this extract of the archive message (from
yourself) that your refer to:
<<<
* Because all the participants are individuals and represent no corporation,
government or other type of organization, intimations and message subtext
regarding the motives and/or hidden agendas of other participants will no
longer be tolerated.
I perfectly understand this and wish to conform. Nevertheless, it is to be
noticed that the licence imposed on Sender-ID is not the property of any
"individual" participating in the works of this group, but the alledged
property of a (rather big) corporation.
This being, the attitude of this corporation and its intentions regarding the
license it wishes to impose are perfectly relevant subjects as they influence
much of the global availability and usability of the concerned technology.
Please note that Richard didn't make any statement regarding the motives
and/or hidden agendas of members of this working group, as, per your own
definition, the concerned corporation is not, as such, a member of this
group.
Furthermore, let me citate anoter extract from your mail of June, 17:
<<<
* Above all else, participants should concentrate their energies on creating
an interoperable standard.
I strongly believe that the license issue is one of the major roadblocks
towards "creating an interoperable standard", and this opinion seems to be
shared by many others.
Thus, in my humble opinion, the remarks that Richard made on this subject were
perfectly relevant.
Respectfully.
--
Michel Bouissou <michel(_at_)bouissou(_dot_)net> OpenPGP ID 0xDDE8AC6E