From: wayne
Sent: September 25, 2004 10:00 PM
In <x4y8izlf4u(_dot_)fsf(_at_)footbone(_dot_)midwestcs(_dot_)com> wayne
<wayne(_at_)midwestcs(_dot_)com> writes:
Maybe I'm wrong and the "SPF community" doesn't have a
problem with the PRA and the MS license, and therefore
Meng's backing of the PRA will not cost him anything.
Personally, I think it is a huge mistake to not drop the
PRA until such time as there is an acceptable license.
I have reflected further on this whole issue and make the
following comments:
* It is fundamental that open standards which are subject
to patents and/or patent claims must be subject to patent
licenses which are compatible with open source licensing
standards to ensuring the continued vibrancy of the
Internet.
* Email is presently one of the core reasons people use the
Internet.
* It is self evident that any proposal which supports PRA
will run into trouble, during any public comment process
prescribed by the IETF as long as Microsoft persists in
requiring a patent license which is not compatible with the
Open Software Alliance standards.
* In the letter sent out Friday by Craig Speizle, he writes:
I would also like to clarify several misstatements
pertaining to our license and patents. From the onset,
Microsoft has confirmed that any potential patent rights
that Microsoft may eventually be granted will be provided
to all users, implementers and distributors of the Sender
ID specification under Microsoft's royalty free license.
Microsoft will not revoke its offer to extend this license
to anyone now and in perpetuity.
Unfortunately, the phrase "the Sender ID specification," is
not defined in this paragraph, except by reference to
"Microsoft's royalty free license."
In the second paragraph of the letter, Speizle writes:
After discussion with the IETF MARID chairs, we jointly
agreed to move forward with a proposal that provides
implementers the choice of utilizing PRA or MAIL FROM for
the Sender ID check mechanism.
And in the third paragraph of the letter, Speizle writes:
While we would have preferred a single technical mechanism
as the standard, we believe the specification to allow
multiple scopes in the protocol is a reasonable approach,
providing choice and flexibility.
Given the broad scope of the patent applications, even
though the term "Sender ID specification" is presently
defined in "Microsoft's royalty free license," there is
nothing in the letter to preclude Microsoft from amending
this definition to fit with any patent rights which
Microsoft may subsequently be granted, we are left with two
possible interpretations:
1. The relevant parts of the potential patent rights that
Microsoft is seeking, although broadly stated only concern
the Sender ID specification, which means: (i) the original
caller-id specification; (ii) the marid-core and marid-pra
specification as defined in Microsoft's draft patent
license; (iii) any amendments to the marid-core and
marid-pra specifications as may occur in obtaining
IETF-experimental status and IETF-standard track for these
specifications.
2. The potential patent rights that Microsoft is seeking
for the Sender ID specification, which means: (i) the
original caller-id specification; (ii) the marid-core and
marid-pra specification as defined in Microsoft's existing
draft patent license; (iii) the marid-mailfrom
specification; (iv) any IETF - experimental set of
protocols involving either mailfrom or pra checking; (iv)
any IETF - standard set of protocols involving either
mailfrom or pra checking.
In light of this lack of clarity and that Microsoft's
existing draft patent license is not compatible with the
Open Software Alliance standards, I believe it incumbent
upon the SPF community as a whole to say:
"We will not participate further with Microsoft until
matters are clarified and Microsoft confirms in writing
that its royalty free license either now or in the future
will be fully compatible with the Open Software Alliance
standards."
Failure to do so exposes the SPF community to the risk that
Microsoft will subsume all present and future efforts, at
the expense of the open source community.
John Glube
Toronto, Canada
The FTC Calls For Sender Authentication
http://www.learnsteps4profit.com/dne.html
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.767 / Virus Database: 514 - Release Date: 21/09/2004