On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 04:28:47PM -0700,
Daniel Quinlan <quinlan(_at_)pathname(_dot_)com> wrote
a message of 23 lines which said:
If patent-encumbered stuff (PRA) is any part of the specification
(and I see it mentioned in your proposal), then the ASF (including
the SpamAssassin and JAMES projects) vehemently objects.
Even if, while mentioned in the specification, it is optional and can
be ommitted at will?
Given that there is a lack of consensus on PRA, it seems like the
best course is drop PRA entirely and allow the specification authors
to revise things a bit more freely again.
Crypto-related standards (a field crippled with patents) often use the
very same method to allow interesting (but potentially infringing)
algorithms. See RFC 2246 for instance. You do not object against it
because it mentions the patented IDEA?