RE: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It


I represent a large company, and despite construction budgets in excess of 
100's of millions,
consulting lawyers fees would cripple my IT budget that could be allocated to 
fighting spam.

Therefore, raised is my hand, lets drop whatever component of sender ID 
requires the license.

Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
terry(_at_)greatgulfhomes(_dot_)com
Fax: (416) 441-9085

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org
[mailto:owner-ietf-mxcomp(_at_)mail(_dot_)imc(_dot_)org]On Behalf Of Chuck 
Mead
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:28 PM
To: ietf-mxcomp(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: DEPLOY/IPR: Fundamental Disagreements, or Get On With It

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ted Hardie wrote:
|
| At 11:06 PM +0200 8/25/04, Koen Martens wrote:
|
|> On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 10:35:41AM -0700, Ryan Ordway wrote:
|>
|>>     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.
|>
|>
|> FWIW, my hand is raised. I oppose against an internet standard that
|> requires a
|> contract with microsoft to implement.
|>
|
| An important part of the IETF process is that we treat all of its
| participants
| as behaving in good faith.  If the license terms offered cause
difficulties
| for you, please state how the terms impact your development and
deployment.
| (Eric's description of the sublicensing issue for Sendmail is a good
| example
| here, and I encourage you to read it as a potential model).

I don't doubt that the holder is acting in good faith and I
don't doubt
that they mean what they say. What I doubt is whether I can apply the
solution being proffered in a piece of opensource software and then
distribute it if I chose to do so. The license does not
appear to allow
that and it also appears to require steps prior to using what we're
proposing as a "standard".

It has been said to me in this forum that I should consult an attorney
if I have questions about the licensing. All I can say to that is "fat
chance" individuals within the OSS community are not going to do this.
Companies might but I personally will not as I cannot afford
the fee my
attorney would charge me. So does that mean that I cannot or won't
implement the solution we're going to offer as a standard. In all
likelihood that is exactly what it means. If that's the case
(and if we
keep heading down this road it's likely that it will be) then what is
the chance that I would implement? It's a sum approaching zero.

So what good does a standard that I cannot implement do for me? None
what so ever. The list of MTA's which appear to be affected by this
situation is not that long (sendmail, postfix, qmail and exim
for sure)
but I'd bet a case of beer that there are more people using
them on the
net today worldwide than are using close source MTA's (and
many of them
won't know or care what they're using... they just want their
email). If
we intend to offer something as a standard we'd better take the
situations of the admins that manage those MTA's into
account. A bit of
practical thought, if you please!

What if we set a standard and nobody used it? MARID would really be
doing the world a favor right?

Hmmmmm....?

- --
Chuck Mead <csm(_at_)redhat(_dot_)com>
Instructor II (and resident Postfix bigot), GLS
Disclaimer: "It's Thursday and my name is Locutus of B0rk!"
Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBLSCCZfy0juH51WsRAvN+AJ4hkCvJDh/aTEIwM9eVfxYZaQzHaACfYOZw
+dv9UKIE2EkJonz0YPDYQbY=
=RVH4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----