spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: What about reverse source path?

2004-05-28 10:56:39
In 
<Pine(_dot_)LNX(_dot_)4(_dot_)44(_dot_)0405281240150(_dot_)18669-100000(_at_)bmsred(_dot_)bmsi(_dot_)com>
 "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart(_at_)bmsi(_dot_)com> writes:

The GPL patent issue, however, I take very seriously.

I should add here that I am not a lawyer and I am not certain that
there is a conflict between MS's patents and the GPL.  Maybe it would
be a good idea to try hitting up the FSF lawyers for an opinion or the
folks at Groklaw or something.

In the area of IPR and the GPL, there is often a lot of FUD (from all
directions) and too many people get pulled into believing stuff that
isn't true.  I guess what I'm saying is let's keep calm about this and
try to get to the facts.


  ...it will at least be possible to implement a libspf-nonxml library
under, maybe, the LGPL for those who do not wish to use xml at all.

Does the M$ patent mean that I am not allowed to interpret the CID data
that M$ publishes without a license?  Am I allowed to distribute a program
which interprets their XML data?

Am I allowed to put some XML data in CID format in my DNS?

I don't know the answers to your questions.  To the best of my
knowledge, MS hasn't listed what they think their intellectual property
rights are.  It is my understanding that the IETF will let patented
technology be used as a basis for a standard, but it must be RAND and
it must be disclosed.  At the IETF meeting, there was a discussion
between Jim Lyon (MS) and Ted Hardie (IETF AD) about this issue,
mostly along the lines of Jim saying "ok, what does MS need to do to
make sure we are doing the right thing?"

For all I know, MS has complied with the IETF requirements and the
answers to your questions are sitting somewhere on the IETF website.


The whole patented fileformat thing is so evil - I can't believe SPF
is having anything to do with a patented fileformat.

I completely agree that software patents are evil.  They are also a
fact of life and many companies want to create "defensive" patents so
that they have weapons to fight back with in case they are attacked.
(Of course, that leaves a lot of room for people to misinterpret
something as an "attack", and the whole thing goes *boom*.)

My gut feel is that the MS lawyers and higher-ups will not allow the
release of Caller-ID without having patents.  They will be willing to
do what they think is "reasonable", but making something that is GPL
compatible may not be a concern to them.


-wayne