I do not want Sender-ID to proceed as it is, giving the IPR claims on
it.
The licence suggested here is unacceptable because:
* in practice, it limits free software implementations (because they
would be no longer really free, since the user will not be able to
modify and redistribute the software without a licence, and he will
not have a licence if it uses the software for something else than
Sender-ID). Section 2.2.
* it gives a company an undeserved acknowledgment that they developed
Sender-ID (in "recitals").
In addition to this, I agree with the following analysis and opinions:
* Yakov Shafranovich "IPR License and Custom Software Development"
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03639.html
* Paul Iadonisi "Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs"
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03589.html
* Mark Shewmaker "Re: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License"
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03514.html
Do note that I'm convinced that the patents (which are not available
for reviewing, another issue) are futile and obvious and are
invalidated by prior-art. But I have no time or money to start a legal
action in a remote country.
I believe that there is unfortunately only one choice: dropping
-pra. Which means, in practice, going back to SPF-classic and starting
to work on SPF-unified.
Do note that I succeeded, following Ted Hardie's advice, in making my
reasoning company-independent :-) But I cannot fail to note that there
is no demonstrated will, from a certain company, to improve the
licence since they don't even reply to emails sent to their official
address.