David Mazieres (no direct replies) writes:
*I* certainly don't want to use a patent to block Sender ID or
anything else. But I can't speak for all my present and future
colleagues. This is just how universities work--a lot of independent
research groups do different things. Some inventions get patented
some don't.
My main objection to your previous posting was that you began by
saying the license is incompatible with the GPL, which in effect is
staking out the moral high ground. But in the same paragraph you went
on to say the license is bad because it's an impediment to software
patents. which to me is an argument from the moral low ground if not
the moral abyss.
Microsoft has said their patent was a defensive measure to keep from
being blind-sided by someone else's patent. Their license terms seem
to back that up, and they suggest that Microsoft (which has lost some
expensive patent lawsuits) may be beginning to perceive software
patents as not such a good idea. If there's any such thing as a good
use for a software patent, keeping other patents from limiting what
developers can do has to be a prime candidate.
All else being equal, I would prefer a GPL-compatible Sender ID to a
liberally-licensed one. However, if the choice is between GPL
compatibility and a step in the direction of eliminating the ability
of anyone, even universities, from using patents to limit other
developers' rights, I'm not sure which choice I'd pick ... not that
I'm being offered any choice in the matter.
--
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