On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 07:52:26PM -0500, Gordon Fecyk wrote:
It's quite clear that the GNU/FSF camp in this list will go to full lengths
to describe how incompatible Microsoft's IPR claims and licensing
requirements are with their precious GPL.
Excuse me, but I license my software using the BSD license. I still
have a problem with the IPR claims and licensing requirements as posted
by Mr. Katz.
I think it's quite rude (your tone notwithstanding, which I also find
rather rude in this post) to simply wave your hand and attempt to
dismiss these concerns. The fundamental issue here is adoption, and the
people who are likely to adopt or dismiss this particular implementation
are trying to say that they're leaning towards dismissing it due to the
IPR claims and licensing requirements.
Further, they're trying to say that they're worried about how these
unspecified IPR claims in the undisclosed patent filings may impact
non-Sender-ID SPF implementations.
Trying to paint the entire Free and Open Source Software movement as
fringe extremists and then dismissing their concerns is a straw man of
the worst sort.
I write software. I'm sufficiently confused and concerned about the
licensing terms and encumbrance of the Microsoft claims that I cannot
be comfortable implementing Sender-ID. And I should not need to consult
a lawyer just to understand my liabilities should I do so.
Nonetheless, proceed apace. We'll route around if needs be.
--
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