In <20041022144436(_dot_)GZ1135(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> Meng Weng
Wong <mengwong(_at_)dumbo(_dot_)pobox(_dot_)com> writes:
On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 08:54:42AM -0500, wayne wrote:
|
| I have *long* said that:
|
| 1) The PRA patent license is a deal killer and can not be accepted.
|
i'm having trouble getting a concrete mental image of what
"accepted" means --- can you give some examples involving
opensource and commercial MUAs and MTAs, SpamAssassin, as
well as the IETF, and other entities and so on?
I guess I never considerd "accepted" to be a very unusual or hard to
understand concept.
As for open source, many patches to Linux/Exim/SpamAssassin are
accepted or not accepted based on many different criteria. Licensing
issues is certainly one thing people consider.
The same goes for proprietary MTAs and such. I doubt that any will
accept code that is licensed by the GPL. ("commercial" !=
"proprietary")
The IETF often doesn't accept I-Ds as RFCs and won't accept some I-Ds
as standard tracked when it will accept them as experimental or
informational.
In a group like this, "accepted" is more of a personal stance, since
no one can force anyone else to accept something or not.
For me, not accepting the PRA license means that not only will I do
nothing to help further it, I will actively work to impede its
progress.
Does this help? Is this still murky to others?
-wayne