On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 12:14:59PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
My point I was trying to get to is that independent of Microsoft's past
behavior, the patent license is either compatible with the GPL or it isn't.
Microsoft's behaviour has no bearing on that question.
That's the one that needs to be answered and isn't going to be answered in
the next 2 weeks.
It would appear to me, IANALATEYHSMBSI (akin to YANALATEYHSMBSI
http://www.cygwin.com/acronyms/#YANALATEYHSMBSI), that it's incompatible.
Time will tell. In the mean time, MARID ouught to work on plan B.
It's not only that it's not compatible with GPL, although debate seems
to focus around this. Maybe makes it easier for the proponents of the ms
license to attack 'the free software priests' or whatever we're called
nowadays.
The fact is that you have to sign a contract with microsoft if you want
anything more than downloading and/or distributing free code. If there's
one thing I will never do, and many with me as I suspect, is sign a
contract with microsoft. Because if you do that, you just know upfront
that you are at the losing end of the bargain.
Given that, the obligatory signing of a contract will stand in the way
of Sender-ID adoption. Which, to me, should be enough to convince anyone
to drop Sender-ID and proceed with spf (+unified)..
Koen
--
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/