-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
| Chuck,
|
| The MARID group has put Microsoft on notice that it has to come up
| with an acceptable license by a certain date if the Sender-ID
technology is
| to remain in the spec.
|
| We have specified the terms that are at issue. Harry is talking to
| the Microsoft lawyers to obtain an acceptable set of license terms.
|
| Exactly what is it that you are objecting to here? That it takes the
| Microsoft lawyers more than 5 days to respond to request for more
| advantageous terms on a license that is already royalty free?
We're more than a little bit past 5 days here.
| Exactly what do you expect to achieve by campaigning on the issue
| now?
A favorable license which allows anyone to use the standard.
If you wanted an earlier resolution of the problem you should have
| raised it earlier.
I did raise it earlier as you well know... in fact I have talked about
little else with my posts to the WG list. The only other thing I've made
clear is that I prefer SPF-Classic as our implementation but I know I am
just one voice among many with respect to that issue.
As to your comments to Richard I wish you luck with it... you don't make
RMS go away that easily and you've likely made it a bigger issue now
than it already was. I had no doubt what his opinion would have been
before he ever posted and I did not ask him to but he certainly has a
right to post if he likes and he has every right to his opinion. The
thing is... I don't agree with Richard about everything but I *DO* agree
~ that the license he created has helped engender freedom in a way that
we would not have had without it. Also you should know that I was told
this via private email recently after I posted to the WG list about the
license:
Chuck,
~ Please have your lawyers read the license you
point to below. They may wish to compare it to the
other licenses granted at the same IETF site already
cited.
~ regards,
~ <snipped>
The license being addressed here is this one:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/0/a/60a02573-3c00-4ee1-856b-afa39c020a95/callerid_license.pdf
Two points about it:
1. I don't have any lawyers to have read the thing. I'm just a small ISP
owner trying to run my services the best way I can for my customers.
2. If I have to hire a lawyer to get an opinion on which to base my
decision about whether to implement, or not, the output of the MARID
group I will not be implementing.
If, OTOH the output of MARID uses the GPL I don't need to hire lawyers,
nor will M$ nor will anybody else... we would all be free to implement
and fix the problem we're trying to solve without worrying about legal
issues. I value that freedom! Don't you?
Now if we end up with some kind of "non-free" license (whatever that
means) then we've got a situation where an IETF standard put forth to
help fix one of the worst technological problems on the internet could
be useless because the major pieces of software functioning as MTA's are
all OSS and licensed such that this new license for implementors of the
MARID product is incompatible. This is not an acceptable result and that
makes this license issue worth talking about!
What are the usage %'s on sendmail, postfix, exim and qmail compared to
the usage of closed source commercial MTA's? Since OSS is obviously the
clear majority why are we having this discussion? Do we really want to
fix the problem or do we want to hire lawyers and play legal games with
it? *THAT* is what I meant when I talked about apologists never learning.
- --
csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com, head geek
http://moongroup.com & http://anironline.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBA+Vev6Gjsf2pQ0oRAntxAJwN+GLa8FISzsByBhJlX27J551OtwCfaeIN
9N6B1qGDkvYqVLli+2NFw+s=
=Gh80
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----