In <20040529020625(_dot_)GA24651(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
If you guys have specific patent-related language that you
want to see them use, please provide it in full, and I will
pass it on to him.
Suggestions of "oh, it should be RF" are easy to make, but
if you could provide several kilobytes of legalese, that
would be even better.
I am not a lawyer, so I think it would be a bad idea for me to try to
provide legalese.
GPL compliance should be a goal of this language.
I think the goal of licening needs to be that it is compatible with
with all known major MTAs, both commercial/proprietary and open
source. Some of those MTAs are GPLed and something that passes the
GPL will likely pass all other requirements, but I'm not certain.
Because of the FUD that surrounds MS, I think that not only must the
license be compatible with things like the GPL, it must be perceived
as being compatible. Having, for example, the FSF lawyer say that it
is compatible would instantly eliminate a lot of FUD.
I think most of use are way out of our league on this issue. We need
help from a clueful lawyer. Lawrence Lessig has been mentioned, and
I think he would be a good choice.
I would be willing to try and contact some of these folks, but it
likely be far more effective to forcably draft someone like Eric
Raymond into doing the contacts for us.
-wayne