Right, and then get the clarification put into the license itself so it does
not need the
clarification. Or will that take several weeks to do also?
Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Harry
Katz
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 2:35 PM
To: Mark C. Langston; IETF MARID List
Subject: RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent
License FAQ
Mark, if there's a specific part of the license you'd like clarified,
I'd encourage you to send mail to stdsreq(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com(_dot_)
Someone from
our legal department will answer your question.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Mark
C. Langston
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 10:26 AM
To: 'IETF MARID List'
Subject: Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent
License FAQ
I'd have to agree with Koen. I'm adding SPFv1 checks to
GOSSiP. I'd like to support the eventual product of MARID,
but given the current license confusion, I can't, nor am I
inclined to. This isn't a "I won't support anything from
Microsoft" position; this is a "It's not entirely clear to me
what rights I retain and which I surrender by including a
Sender-ID implementation in my code." position.
--
Mark C. Langston GOSSiP Project Sr.
Unix SysAdmin
mark(_at_)bitshift(_dot_)org http://sufficiently-advanced.net
mark(_at_)seti(_dot_)org
Systems & Network Admin Distributed SETI
Institute
http://bitshift.org E-mail Reputation
http://www.seti.org
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>