On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 09:55:52AM -0700, Harry Katz wrote:
Finally we have committed to a royalty free license. That means
Microsoft will never charge a royalty or licensing fee to anyone using
the Sender ID necessary patent claims to implement the Sender ID
specification.
Then why all the secrecy? Why the license? Why the frustration of the
process?? Frankly, this makes it a little hard to keep the illusion that
microsoft acts in good faith a little hard to keep up.
I'm sorry, but all this scares away a lot of people, even some who are
already rejecting anything remotely connected to senderid, such as spf.
Why not just make a license that says microsoft donates the patent
royalty free, which is signed once and for all by i don't know who can
make this legal and be done with it? Why insisting on a license that
needs signing by every little chain in the development/distributing
process??
Frankly, this whole ordeal disgusts me. I'm already pulling sendmail out
of production on all servers I maintain, because they so openly endorse
this nail to the foundations of open source.
Also, I will not contribute with code to spf anymore, since there is the
risk that microsoft will all of a sudden pop up with some patent and
demand me to sign some license. Leave it to microsoft to ruin a
perfectly simple, unencumbered, working protocol! Thanks guys!
Koen Martens
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/