On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 19:29, Justin Mason wrote:
Are there patent issues with "New SPF"? I'd be very keen to find
that out ASAP, as that is (obviously) a very big deal for us in
SpamAssassin and would affect our support for it.
I really don't think this is getting enough attention. I mentioned
that if any patents are required to implement this New SPF (or any other
sender authentication that's proposed) that it is essential that they be
available under an RF basis. The only real responses I got were an
almost-debate about the merits of the GPL vs. other licenses and one
from Meng who said that he'd be happy to hear advice on making sure that
whatever is decided on is GPL compatible.
I didn't post any followup only because there's really not any more to
offer other than what was in my original post: RF is required in order
for it to be implemented in GPLed software. This goes for exim,
courier-mta, and PowerMail at a minimum. I don't know what more can be
said, but I would definitely like to hear what the status of any
relevant patents are. I'd like to see something along the lines of
Yahoo!'s IPR statement at
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/yahoo-ipr-draft-delany-domainkeys-base.txt
from Microsoft and anyone else involved.
Any chance anyone on this list (Meng?) can press Microsoft for this?
Or a status on it? Or something?
--
-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