On Fri, 2004-08-27 at 15:57, George Mitchell wrote:
[...] If it is your intent to be unwavering and steadfast in
your opinion no matter the discourse of the issues, we ask that you
disengage from this working group.
Well, golly, I think this might refer to me. It might refer to a
number of people who object to the license agreement under discussion.
Certainly if all of us leave, that will resolve the lack of consensus
on the licensing issue. Is that what you are requesting?
Well, that's not how I took it. I think it's referring more to post
of the sort that say 'give me SPF-Classic/SRS or give me death'. I
don't think my own posts fall into that category, but I could be wrong.
I suggested it as an alternative, but only to point out that we DO have
alternatives here and that the IPR issues with Sender-ID are
sufficiently show stopper to step back not submit it at this time. Even
if *nothing* is submitted at this time, that would be fine with me, but
it's just too soon for Sender-ID, given that the patent licenses was
only published at the beginning of Last Call.
Aside to Andrew Newton: no, I took no offense to your correction of my
statement about 'endorsing the kind of vagueness...'. No problem.
--
-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