On Tue, 2004-05-25 at 21:45, Meng Weng Wong wrote:
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:52:21PM -0700, Harry Katz wrote:
| The current caller ID license is published at
| www.microsoft.com/callerid. It's been revised to clarify a number of
| issues and to be compatible with IETF IPR rules.
Question is, are IETF IPR rules good enough for the RF folks ...
Please don't turn this into an us vs. them situation by referring to
those who have this concern as 'the RF folks'. This is not like jpeg or
mpeg where there are alternatives. There's a nasty potential here and
that it is that the WORLD will need to pay a license fee to a single, or
to very few large corporations in order to effectively filter their mail
or possible even to have their mail accepted by the majority of the rest
of the world.
As far as being compatible with the IETF IPR rules, I'm not familiar
with them in detail, but I thought they allowed each working group
decide for themselves whether or not to allow non-RF licensed patents.
I've quickly started reading this license and though, at least so far,
it appears to be RF (as claimed), it already looks unweildly. You must
return a signed copy of the license to Microsoft as a condition of the
license. Now as far as patents go, I thought it was your USE of the
patent that required a license. Does that mean that everyone who
implements the technology covered by this (these) patent(s) must sign
and return this agreement to Microsoft. Oy, the motherload of paper!
It just seems silly.
As an aside I just *skimmed* the license further, and I doubt it's GPL
compatible, due to something similar to the old-BSD 'advertising' clause
and the non-transferability of it.
But that could all be irrelevant if it is determined that the New SPF
doesn't require the use of Microsoft's patent(s) anyhow. What are these
patents and what do they cover? Can we get some references and perhaps
follow through and have Lessig and/or Moglen (some associated with the
FSF at a minimum, for GPL purposes) review the technology specifications
and license(s) for compatibility. I'd really like to get this done at
an early stage. I fear we may already be too late, if the merged plan
has already been etched in stone.
--
-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