On Sun, 2004-07-25 at 13:41, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
It really is not an issue, either the license is provided on time
or the technology gets dropped. Trying to keep the argument alive
as you have been doing only makes it look like you have a weak position.
I haven't read all of the discussion on the MARID mailing list, but if
this is true without any ambiguities, then I'd think PHB is correct
here. *Provided* that the requirement is not that Microsoft provides
not just *any* license on time, but one that is acceptable to GPL, BSD,
commercial and otherwise licensed MTA developers.
In other words if Microsoft does in fact provide an answer, but it is
unacceptable to the exim, courier-mta, postfix, PowerMail, etc., then
the technology should be dropped.
If, OTOH the output of MARID uses the GPL I don't need to
hire lawyers,
But only GPL software could use it. GPL is deliberately
encumbered. It would be impossible to ship MARID in BSD code,
let alone commercial code.
I'm still boggled by how many people mix up source code licensing with
patent (as well as documentation) licenses. I care not, nor should
anyone on this list or the MARID list, how Microsoft (or anyone else)
chooses to license its *code*. With the usual IANAL disclaimer, IMNSHO
the GPL license is only suitable for source code. All that is required
is that whatever license Microsoft comes up with is *compatible* with
the GPL license, i.e.: allows whatever patented algorithm(s) to be
implemented in GPLed software. (I specify the GPL only because it is
probably the hardest free license to comply with regarding patents.) So
expecting 'the output of MARID' to use the GPL is bit off kilter, as far
as I'm concerned, and I am a self professed GPL fanatic.
I can't say that I agree with much that PHB has posted recently, much
less his tone, but if his assertion is correct that the technology will
be dropped if Microsoft doesn't give MARID an answer pronto (and I hope
that means an *acceptable* answer as I've stated above), then I say let
Microsoft dig their own grave IF that is what they so choose. And IF
Microsoft chooses to dig that grave, lets not fall into it with them.
If they decide NOT to dig that grave, then we can all rejoice and move
on to other productive discussions.
Everything I've been hearing, anyhow, is that the PRA algorithm has
changed since originally submitted (which raises the question of whether
or not MS's patent even covers it any longer -- we await the answer from
MS). Even to the point that it has been severely weakened and no longer
provides the protection that the PRA proponents originally claimed. So
there are plenty of technical reasons to reject PRA as well as legal.
I now sit in wonder at my own post, given that I was probably one of
the earliest posters to bring up the patent issue on the spf-discuss
list ;-)
--
-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