In <04Aug24(_dot_)131952edt(_dot_)119074(_at_)hq(_dot_)medrad(_dot_)com> "Holm,
Mark" <MHolm(_at_)medrad(_dot_)com> writes:
Executive summary of all the text below:
In short, MS won't charge if you don't charge. MS won't sue if you
don't sue. The thing is defined very narrowly to apply only to
SenderID. I'm not a lawyer, don't take this email to court.
I don't think the license is as bad as you imply.
[...]
When you use GPL'ed source code, you accept the terms of the GPL (Ever
read it? I have.), and they are not so different from the terms of
this license. This license has a few more teeth in it, but those
appear to be aimed primarily at protecting the free distribution of
SenderID technology.
There are many who dislike the GPL because of the restrictions it
places on derivative works. There are others who like it for this
very reason. The subject of "which creates freer software, the BSD
license or the GPL?" is frequently argued.
The difference between the GPL and the Microsoft SenderID patent
licenses is that with the GPL, anyone can go out and create a new
program that isn't under the GPL. With the patent license, everyone
has to accept it.
It appears (IANAL) that the Microsoft patent license is incompatible
with the GPL. This means that such programs as exim and spamassassin
*can not* implement SenderID. This is a problem, and in my humble
opinion, a very serious one.
-wayne