Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I have yet to see a statement that makes a valid legal argument
that the license terms prohibit open source distribution.
My worry (and, as seen through my non-legalese eyes, apparently shared by
many), is not that the Sender-ID license is open, but that it is *too* open.
:) Too open-ended, that is; leaving all sorts of vague, open-ended clauses
in which Microsoft reserves the right to tighten the noose in the future.
There is also a legitimate concern that Microsoft will usurp the use of SPF.
Yes, I know, nowhere in the license does it explicitly say that they will;
but there is no specific exclusion either, is there? No line that says, "The
use of SPF is expressly not covered by this license." They sort of keep it
in the middle. And since Sender-ID plans to use SPF checks too, there is no
exact telling whether, at a later date, Microsoft will not suddenly decide
that SPF is theirs too, as part of Sender-ID.
This is a quasi-judicial proceeding, we have to proceed on the
basis of established facts.
And we have to proceed on the basis of examining what facts the licence
allows Microsoft to establish in the future.
- Mark
System Administrator Asarian-host.org
---
"If you were supposed to understand it,
we wouldn't call it code." - FedEx