In <94df60cf040902185938a7d947(_at_)mail(_dot_)gmail(_dot_)com>
<mazieres(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> writes:
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:42:51 -0700, Harry Katz
<hkatz(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
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.
Harry:
Is this your opinion, or Microsoft's lawyer's opinion?
Sorry, can you explain in more detail?
I would like more details also.
[...] I'm just not seeing that in the text of the agreement.
[explanation deleted]
Your explanation complete agrees with what I understand the license to
say.
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?
Well, I asked a lawyer about this very subject and got an informal
opinion that pretty much agrees with your understanding and conflicts
with Harry's.
Basically, the *only* source code distributions that are allowed under
the SenderID license are those that corrispond with object code
implementations. Source code in the form of a patch is not allowed
because it won't compile. Any redistribution from a third party like
sourceforge requires a license. Anyone who modifies even a single
#define in the source code so that the resulting object code is
different needs to get a license.
Now, my paraphrasing of what the lawyer said may well have mangled a
few things. I won't repost private email, so I would appreciate any
lawyer posting answers to David's questions directly to the list. MS
lawyers would be best.
-wayne