spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GPL REQU IRED

2004-05-25 18:43:31
Would it be appropriate to ask Meng and/or others to approach Lessig[1] and
Groklaw[2] on establishing a firm open and free basis for this work - just
off the top of my head.

Ed

[1] http://www.lessig.org/  or http://www.lessig.org/blog/
[2] http://www.groklaw.net/

-----Original Message-----
From: jm(_at_)jmason(_dot_)org [mailto:jm(_at_)jmason(_dot_)org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 5:20 PM
To: spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com
Subject: Re: [spf-discuss] The New SPF: overall outline - CAUTION GPL
REQU IRED 


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Paul Iadonisi writes:
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?

Bear in mind, Yahoo!'s statement isn't great either.   It's non-perpetual.

- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS

iD8DBQFAs+KkQTcbUG5Y7woRAsuoAKDGr3rvUlRn7irDTxPvaIp89D3+lgCeN4K+
QwYkpjM9PX/BoUPricIBNAc=
=Ld2O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
Latest draft at http://spf.pobox.com/spf-draft-200405.txt
Wiki: http://spfwiki.infinitepenguins.net/pmwiki.php/SenderPermittedFrom/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription, 
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com