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

Margaret Olson wrote:
> 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.
The problem is not limited to open source or commercial. The main issue 
at hand is whether this specific license would be detrimental to 
deployment at large of this standard (in my personal opinion, the main 
place where this issue will come to play out is not the main open source 
and commercial email applications, but rather within ISPs and small 
companies that want to implement this in-house).
The question we should be asking is whether this specific license will 
be detrimental to deployment of Sender-ID at large. While you argue that 
alternatives will emerge, others including potential implementors have 
made points as to why this license may scare away potential 
implementors. The problem is that we really don't know until the 
standard is approved which makes it kind of a catch-22.
...

> 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.
In the context of the original question that is posted - how will this 
affect deployment, the lawyer issue is rather important. If a signficant 
number of potential implementors will not want to implement Sender-ID 
because they are unsure about what they are signing and cannot afford a 
lawyer, it will be detrimental to the overall success of the standard.
Yakov