In
<D96522A138F4D4479CB5F7F583B98F057B4667(_at_)df-chewy-msg(_dot_)exchange(_dot_)corp(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com>
"Harry Katz" <hkatz(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> writes:
For the convenience of the working group, attached is the full text of
the FAQ.
If you have any further questions about the license, I encourage you to
consult with your own attorney and/or email your question to
stdsreq(_at_)microsoft(_dot_)com(_dot_) Someone from our legal department
will answer
your questions.
Ok, I'm afraid I'm confused by all this and I would like some help in
clarifying the situation around qmail.
In the Microsoft SenderID FAQ, it states:
Q7: Is Microsofts license compatible with Sendmail, Postfix and Qmail?
A7: While each open source software license may differ, we believe you
can distribute your implementation under many open source software
licenses, so long as you include the attribution stipulated in
sec. 2.2 of Microsofts Royalty-Free Sender ID Patent License
Agreement. You should check with your own legal counsel if you have
questions about a particular open source software license. Microsoft
has not been made aware of any specific incompatibilities between any
of the licenses used to distribute Sendmail, Postfix, or Qmail with
Microsofts royalty-free patent license.
Now, at the IETF-60 meeting, it was pointed out that qmail has a
quirky license. (Many/most people do not consider qmail to be Open
Source Software because of its license.) Basically, only the
original author can modify qmail, all other changes must be
distributed separately and applied as patches. As the original author
hasn't updated qmail for years, almost all qmail users take the
original source and apply one or more sets of "patches" in order to
create an MTA (mail server) which they can use.
At the IETF-60, it was pointed out that the SenderID license would
mean that all users of qmail would need to obtain a license from
Microsoft. Qmail, it should be pointed out, is one of the popular
MTAs on the Internet. Some claim it ranks #2 behind sendmail, but it
clearly is one of the top 5.
So, the question is:
Would a qmail patch author qualify as a "licensed implementation" and
thus someone who takes qmail and creates a derivative work of it by
apply the patch qualify as an "end user"?
If not, wouldn't this mean that users of qmail that want to support
SenderID (which we hope will be all of them) need to get a license
from Microsoft?
Section 2.1 says how you can distribute to "End Users" in object code form,
but a patch isn't object code.
Section 2.2 says how you can distribute to "End Users" a "Licensed
Implementation" in source code form. So the question is: can a patch
be a "Licensed Implementation?"
Section 1.2 gives the definition of a "Licensed Implementation",
which, in the second of the two (ii) clauses, requires you to have
branded trademark. Do any patches have trademarks?
Section 1.5 gives the definition of a "End User", it talks about
receiving a "product".
Section 1.3 gives the definition of a "Licensed Product", but I don't
think a patch is a product.
Now the whole problem with patches is that they are derivative works
of the original because they contain lines of source code for
"context". When you apply a patch and compile it, you are creating a
derivative work of both the original and the patch. Often times, the
resulting patch needs to be tweaked because of other patches that have
also been applied.
It isn't at all clear to me that a patch can be a "Licensed Product"
and thus allowing the person applying the patch to the qmail
source to be covered by the "End User" aspects of the SenderID
license. Even if a patch could be a product, aren't you
creating a new product when you apply the patch?
-wayne