-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Paul Iadonisi wrote:
| 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.
Yes... and even I am guilty (though I *DO* know the difference). What I
should have said is that the MARID result should *ALLOW* a GPL licensed
implementation.
- --
Chuck Mead
csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com
Chief Tech @ http://moongroup.com - http://anirononline.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFBBUoCv6Gjsf2pQ0oRAmw8AJ48W8AvTcihFYviQayzhBvSL6jACQCeODNb
Cd1kVZyJSPeCWt0cXjH+nDc=
=WhOl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----