Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ

On Aug 26, 2004, at 8:26 AM, wayne wrote:

> In  
> <C6DDA43B91BFDA49AA2F1E473732113E010BEAD2(_at_)mou1wnexm05(_dot_)vcorp(_dot_)ad(_dot_)vrsn(_dot_)com 
> > "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <pbaker(_at_)verisign(_dot_)com> writes:
> > > 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?
> > Or an alternative MTA :-)
> Is your goal in supporting the SenderID license to get people to use
> "an alternative MTA", say the one that Harry and Jim work on?
Wayne and others.
I largely agree with Phill, but let me try to present the issue a  
slightly different way. I use several MTA implementations, both  
commercial and open source. I've concluded that the current license  
will allow me to continue to have a good selection of open source and  
commercial choices with Sender ID implementations. Open source is open  
source - Sender ID is sufficiently valuable that I'm convinced that  
viable Sender ID variants will emerge, even if they are not distributed  
in quite the same way that the code is today. Both Eric Allman and  
Phill have discussed ways to approach this problem. I am speaking as  
someone who intends to implement receive side Sender ID as soon as  
possible.
So while the license is less than ideal, it's sufficient. It is also  
fundamentally defensive, and anyone with significant assets  
contemplating donating IPR has to concern themselves with the defensive  
legal issues. The fundamental goal is to make sure you can use your own  
IPR after you have donated it, which is otherwise not assured. I would  
not like to see contributions to the IETF limited to individuals and  
corporations who are not successful enough to have this kind of legal  
concern. For one thing, it would rule out all organizations with  
significant R&D budgets. Followed to it's logical conclusion, this  
approach to license requirements give us problems even with open source  
donations, since some of the open source licenses are mutually  
incompatible.
I have also had the impression that some folks on the list are  
expecting Microsoft to give them what amounts to legal advice. A lawyer  
representing me, being paid by me, can't give you legal advice about  
how to deal with me - there is a conflict of interest.  So where  
Microsoft  does provide clarifications or suggestions it will be  
caveated it left and right with "consult your own lawyer" just to make  
sure you are not confused about whose interests are being represented.  
This is how the legal system works; it's not some sort of Microsoft  
conspiracy to make everyone waste money on legal advice.
In the spirit of frugality, I applaud Wayne's contacting of Eben  
Moglen. It's always a good idea to avoid paying a lawyer (or anyone  
else, for that matter) to come up to speed on a particular subject.
Margaret.