spf-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Distrowatch article on SPF

2004-07-30 08:47:06
on 7/30/04 6:32 PM, Robert Storey at y2kbug(_at_)ms25(_dot_)hinet(_dot_)net 
wrote:

I'd be very appreciative if a few people here would look at it first and
see if I've made any factual errors.

I can't speak for RMS, but I suspect you've incorrectly characterized his
position, not to mention the details of the Microsoft license, when you say
"Which is what worries Richard M. Stallman - that IETF will approve a
standard encumbered with a software patent, effectively giving Microsoft the
green light to demand a licensing fee from users of free software."
Microsoft has from the beginning offered a royalty-free license, so I don't
think RMS' concern is that Microsoft might demand a licensing fee.

From his post it appears he believes the current Sender ID license has
requirements that are incompatible with the GPL, which would make several of
the popular mail servers that are licensed under the GPL unable to
interoperate with mail servers that choose to make use of Sender ID.  He
specifically mentioned "Free to do so means there is no requirement to ask
or tell anyone that you are doing so," so I suspect he is concerned about a
term in the current Sender ID license that, unlike any of the open source
licenses, requires anyone who implements or deploys Sender ID to
specifically notify Microsoft of this intention as well as grant Microsoft
permission to publish their name and address.

Of course, as you mention in your draft, it has been reported that Microsoft
is in the process of drafting a new license for Sender ID that many hope
will obviate such concerns.

-Richard


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>