On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 06:48, Andrew Newton wrote:
[snip]
- If it is reasonable to assume that Microsoft's patent application
and claimed IPR can and/or do reach beyond draft-ietf-marid-core and
draft-ietf-marid-pra, is it not the best course of action to take
Microsoft's offer of a royalty-free, nondiscriminatory and reasonable
license given that a rejection of Sender ID as a standard has no weight
on the standing of their claim. In other words, if it is believed that
their claim could cover other work product of MARID, then would not the
best course of action be to secure the best-possible license?
To the above, absolutely not. If, in fact, the IPR claims extend
beyond what the holder has contributed, then I don't know how anyone can
continue to say that the IPR holder has done us any favors. Patenting
someone else's work should not be rewarded in any way.
I know a lot of work has gone into these drafts. But too often I find
in other venues that people are simply unwilling to give up on a design,
a product, an elegant hack, whatever, because it took so much effort to
reach that point. Even it is clear that that is what should be done.
Starting over is not fun.
But if it is determined that the IPR hinders adoption seriously -- and
I gave a specific example of how would hinder my own adoption -- then it
is serious enough that it needs to either be dropped, or the IPR holder
needs to be persuaded to come up with a better license. Or in this
case, both: drop it for now, and reconsider it later if the IPR holder
comes up with a better license. One that satisfies both proprietary and
FOSS licensed products. We now have two expert opinions from prominent
lawyers in the FOSS arena that state clearly that this license is not
satisfactory.
- On the issue of deployment, there have been many messages regarding
the adoption of Sender ID (as a note, the chair's instructions
specifically called for opinion about personal deployment and not
speculation as to the actions of others). While many believe that
Sender ID's encumbrances will slow adoption because it is not as
friendly as desired toward open source, it has been noted that Qmail
also has an equally or more unfriendly license toward open source yet
is one of the most popularly used MTAs.
This discussion has confused me. Qmail is not a standard. Refusing
to use qmail because of the license (my primary reason) does not make
one a second class internet citizen of sorts. There are many other SMTP
implementations out there licensed under more favorable terms such as
the GPL and BSD licenses.
But a patent license is different. *Every* implementation of
Sender-ID needs to execute a license. Because this is on a standards
track, every SMTP server will need to implement Sender-ID. That in turn
will require Exim, Courier-MTA, and PowerMail to either change their
licenses (an entirely unacceptable solution for most) or become second
class citizens because they cannot implement Sender-ID.
===
On the issue of the IPR holder coming to the defense of those who
implement Sender-ID, the FOSS community doesn't need it, or I would
guess, even want it. What needs to happen is for efforts like that of
the Public Patent Foundation and others like it to get more broad
support. But that's a topic for another forum.
I'm also boggled that you are endorsing the kind of vagueness that
many of us are trying to get some clarification on. If the IPR holders
claims extend beyond -core and -pra, then we want answers. We don't
want so-called 'favorable' license terms 'just in case'. That sounds
like it comes from another, unnamed software vendor who still thinks the
the Linux using world should take out a license with them 'just in
case'. It borders on extortion. Software patents cause enough
problems. Lets not make it worse by endorsing the licensing of
unspecified technology that someone *might* have IPR claims over.
--
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets