This may be naive in terms of the workings of the group,
and protocol...but rather than abandon Sender I.D., why
not contact MS and explain to them the concerns, and
let them clarify?
I believe it is not in their best interest to do so or Harry and crew would
have released those clarifications by this time.
Knowing the GPL is designed exactly to counter the kinds of practices
Microsoft, Oracle and other [pure or mostly] software companies routinely
use, we should expect any Sender ID license will never be GPL compatible.
It's not going to happen.
The GPL is not the only open source license that Sender ID's terms run afoul
of, if I read the noise in MARID correctly.
And apparently some prior works, including the input documents for this
working group, could be subject to patents applied for. That includes the
original SPF.
I see another Rambus in the making here, exactly the same concern I brought
up with the BOF chairs back at IETF 59, where I was assured the IETF didn't
tolerate such behaviour.
--
PGP key (0x0AFA039E):
<http://www.pan-am.ca/consulting(_at_)pan-am(_dot_)ca(_dot_)asc>
Sometimes it's hard to tell where the game ends and where reality bites,
er, begins. <http://vmyths.com/resource.cfm?id=50&page=1>