On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 18:13, James Couzens wrote:
On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 14:03, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
This is being done under the IETF aegis. I am optimistic about IP
issues and will be happy to take advice about maximizing GPL
compatibility.
Forget the GPL. I point you in the direction of the libspf license
which is a derivative of the Apache license. Its such a great license
since everyone benefits:
Please *don't* forget the GPL. While it's obvious from my signature
that I quite adamantly favor the GPL, I don't dislike the BSD, Apache,
MIT/X, and other similar licenses. (For the record, I'm a sendmail
bigot, even though it is not covered under the GPL.) But the simple
fact is that the GPL does not allow the inclusion of technology that
requires a patent license that is anything other than RF.
And because there are at least three MTAs that are covered by the GPL
(exim, courier-mta, and PowerMail), a RAND patent encumbered technology
would have the potential of unfairly eliminating these MTAs from the
market.
I didn't comment on the BSD, Apache, MIT/X or other similiar licenses
only because I don't know enough about them to know how patents can
interfere (or not) with software covered by those licenses. So I'm not
trying to turn this into an off topic license debate. Just stating GPL
compatibility is an important aspect with something as crucial as an
SMTP extension and other infrastructure related changes to protocols.
--
-Paul Iadonisi
Senior System Administrator
Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux.
GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets