On Wed, 2004-08-25 at 06:30, wayne wrote:
If the FSF and "GPL fanatics" were demanding that SenderID *HAD* to be
GPL'ed, then you might have a point. Instead, the problem is that it
Microsoft appears to be demanding that SenderID *CANNOT* be GPL'ed.
This is the point that those either in favor of
or ambivalent towards the RFSIPL are missing. People don't
so much care WHAT license Microsoft conjures up, as long as it
is not going to be a) burdensome to those implementing and
distributing software containing their alleged IP and b)
detrimental to adoption of whatever, if any, standard arises.
Microsoft has *not* "gone to extreme lengths to accommodate the
not-so-extreme groups", their license is much more burdensome than
many other IPR licenses for other RFCs approved by the IETF.
And therefore, using previous standards with IPR
licenses as an excuse to adopt a standard with a much more
burdensome license starts us back down the slippery slope.
"Go ahead, drink the kool-aid... other people have done it!"
About the only thing I agree with Gordon is that we should "Get On
With It". We need to drop the PRA because of the license and move on
to alternatives that protect the From: header more directly with fewer
problems.
Perhaps a show of hands is in order to see just
how much of a "minority" those who disapprove of the terms
of the RFSIPL are? Consider my hand raised.
Ryan
--
HELO, my name is root... you have SIGKILLed my father... prepare to vi!