Right now, we are supposed to be reviewing all of the documents.
However, as demonstrated in the "DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental
Disagreements, or Get On With It" thread, there doesn't seem to be a
rough consensus that the SenderID license is acceptable. (Actually,
there appears to be a rough consensus that it isn't acceptable.)
I have yet to see a statement that makes a valid legal argument
that the license terms prohibit open source distribution.
The license terms are at least as open as the terms which the
IETF has accepted in the past.
This is a quasi-judicial proceeding, we have to proceed on the
basis of established facts. About the only fact I see a consensus
on is that none of us are lawyers.
Larry Lessig is a lawyer, lets give him a call and hit his folk
up for some pro bono.
First I would suggest that those wanting to make the argument that
the license terms are not acceptable put them in a form that is
more coherent than that advanced so far. In particular paying close
attention to the fact that what is wanted is a license to redistribute
software without let or hinderance.