Re: Sender-ID and free software

Note:  This is a message I sent a few days ago, but my address was blocked; you've already seen Richard's reply, but here's the message he was replying to.  -- Nathaniel

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nborenst(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
> Date: July 27, 2004 10:30:39 AM EDT
> To: Richard Stallman <rms(_at_)gnu(_dot_)org>
> Cc: Marshall Rose <mrose(_at_)dbc(_dot_)mtview(_dot_)ca(_dot_)us>, michel(_at_)bouissou(_dot_)net, ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
> Subject: Sender-ID and free software
>
> On Jul 26, 2004, at 10:30 AM, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> > The important issue here, the one that people's attention must focus
> > on, is to thwart the attempt to exclude free software operating
> > systems from full participation in email.
>
> With respect, you're flat-out wrong in this context.  For the community having this discussion, *the* important issue is stopping spam, which tops all surveys as the scourge of the Internet age.  But even that's not the right issue for this particular mailing list, which has a very specific task.  Here,  the most important issue is resolving the details of a specific family of protocol proposals related to IP-based authentication of email.
>
> The issues you raise are serious ones, and I respect their importance.  But they are only *slightly* more relevant to this mailing list than the relative merits of Levitra and Viagra as spam-enabling technologies.
>
> > The members of the IETF surely cannot want petty matters to preclude
> > the thorough and proper consideration a potential serious problem that
> > would affect all of society.
>
> The members of the IETF range from survivalist gun nuts to committed communists.  Not surprisingly, there is a significant subset of the IETF community that regularly engages in extended debate on subjects like the one you raise, and they have over time helped to evolve the IETF's intellectual property policy, among other things.  Thanks in part to that history, I am confident that the IESG and IAB will not permit the emergence of a standard that excludes *anyone* from "full participation in email."
>
> > Not every technical question is purely technical in its consequences.
> > Some have social implications.  One of the lessons society learned
> > after some bad experiences in the 40s and 50s was that scientists and
> > engineers must take account of the social consequences of their work.
> > To bury one's head in engineering and ignore its impact is socially
> > irresponsible.
>
> I certainly share your concern that technologists must weigh our social responsibilities, and the larger consequences of our work.  Many of us devote a great deal of time to these issues.  However, most of us choose not to interfere with well-focused technical discussions in order to advance our own (highly controversial) interpretations of our social responsibilities.
>
> Finally, wearing my IBM hat, let me assure everyone on this mailing list that the legal terms of the Sender-ID license are receiving close scrutiny from many directions.  It is very important to IBM that every Linux user have the ability to make use of Sender-ID.  We also welcome Microsoft's participation in and contribution to this standard, and the cooperative spirit they have shown so far.  -- Nathaniel
>
> ---
> Nathaniel S. Borenstein, Ph.D.  <nborenst(_at_)us(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
> Distinguished Engineer, IBM Lotus Division