Scott Kitterman writes:
Just to amplify, Sender ID is a proprietary attempt to mandate behavior
that no internet RFC requires.
I don't think you'll find many (if any) on this list that care to redesign
mailing lists to support Microsoft's patented attempt to block free
software. Just for comparison's sake, look at the licensing terms Yahoo is
using for DKIM.
I've been a free-software guy for decades and don't like Microsoft
very much, but I think it's important to stick to the truth. In this
case the truth is very different from Scott's characterization.
Microsoft's license is
- free
- perpetual
- worldwide
It allows you to
- make
- use
- import
- offer to sell
- sell
- distribute, directly and indirectly, to end users
binary object code implementations, and it allows you to
- distribute
- otherwise disclose
the source code, provided that
- source code you distribute includes Microsoft's patent notice
- you grant a reciprocal license for your Sender-ID
implementation(s) to
+ Microsoft
+ All other Sender-ID licensees
It explicitly allows anyone to *use* Sender-ID without a exectuting a
license agreement.
As for Scott's claim that Microsoft is attempting to mandate behavior,
the license says
Nothing in this Agreement shall be consatrued as requiring You to
use or implement the Sender ID Specification, or limit the Parties
from competing in any way ... including engaging in activities,
independently or with others, that may be deemed competitive with
the Sender ID Specification."
I don't like software patents, but this is about as benign as a
license can be. The license terms have been the same since November
2004, and it's high time misinformation stopped being spread.
--
Dick St.Peters, stpeters(_at_)NetHeaven(_dot_)com
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com