On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:42:51 -0700, Harry Katz
<hkatz(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:49 PM, mazieres(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com
[mailto:mazieres(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com] wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:55:52 -0700, Harry Katz
<hkatz(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
Second as per the terms of the license itself, End Users who are
recipients of a licensed implementation of Sender ID and
distributors
who are redistributing a branded licensed implementation do not need
to separately sign this License Agreement.
I understand your the point about End Users, but could you
clarify how the license exempts distributors? Specifically,
my concern is that while section 2.1 allows indirect
distribution of object code, section 2.2, which applies to
source code, does not.
Section 2.2 references 2.1 in a way that makes it permissible to
"indirectly" distribute the source code versions of the Licensed
implementations too. In other words, if you're redistributing a
licensed branded implementation - either source or binary - you don't
need to execute the license agreement.
Sorry, can you explain in more detail? I'd like to belive this is the
case, but I'm just not seeing that in the text of the agreement. 2.2
gives me a "license to distribute or otherwise disclose source code
copies of such Licensed Implementation licensed in Section 2.1..." So
it sounds like the source code has to correspond to a binary licensed
in 2.1, but I don't see how the reference to 2.1 affects the
distribution of source code. As I read that sentence, the only
options for source code are to "distribute" or "otherwise disclose".
Does having a third party like sourceforge distribute your source code
count as "otherwise disclosing" the source code? Is it really the
case that sourceforge wouldn't need their own license? Is one of the
lawyers on the list willing to vouch for this interpretation?
David
David