Hmm, too bad they weren't committed enough to make the license
sub-licenseable. That's a key component of open source.
Therein lies the problem. Microsoft's lawyers really have no obligation to
do this or anything else for their competition. Open source is in effect
their only real competition so what real incentive do they have to provide
for open source in any way?
They're in the business to make money, not to save the world from spam or
falsified e-mail. They're only doing Sender ID because their paying
customers are asking for it - or something - to stop falsified e-mail.
Open source people need to Get On With It[1] and finish SPF, or something
else, as a viable and free alternative. You need to do that to keep
Microsoft honest. And if it means moving development to Norway or wherever
software patent law doesn't exist, do it.
I've already offered to buy and set up a test machine running Win2K Server
accessible through some kind of remote desktop service to one developer. Any
other takers?
[1] Gee, where have I said that before?
--
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>