On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 14:24, Ryan Malayter wrote:
[wayne]
The possibility that requiring every single user of qmail to get a
signed license from Microsoft is a reason for concern.
IANAL, but it is quite clear to me that the MS license requires nothing
of the sort:
IANAL also, but to me it looks like the qmail users, (or at least the
admins installing qmail), *would* have to sign Microsoft's license.
Section 2.1 grants signatories the right to "make" object code versions
of implementations. It also grants them the right to "use" the object
code versions they made.
Since section 2.1 specifically separates the notion of a right to "make"
an object code version from the right to "use" an object code version,
to me that implies that you can't assume that just because you've got
one right that you've also got the other.
"Your End Users may use the Licensed Implementations licensed
^^^
in this section 2.2 or in section 2.1 that they receive directly or
indirectly from You without executing this Agreement.
In the section you quoted, they grant End Users a "use" right without
any mention of a right to "make" object code.
I can only conclude that End Users aren't allowed to compile source code
implementations into object code, but that they are allowed to use the
source code if such use doesn't require compilation.
So bash scripts are okay, but qmail is right out, as are source RPMS,
perl scripts (as perl creates temporary object code), and python scripts
(as python not only compiles code into object files, but saves the
object code in .pyc files).
Furthermore, not only could End Users not install qmail, they also
couldn't install source distributions such as gentoo and the various
BSDs, if those distributions were to incorporate SenderID.
And heaven help us if anyone out there considers sendmail.cf to be
object code, as then the license wouldn't even allow an End User to
trigger the m4-generation of a SenderID-supporting sendmail.cf.