On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:48:42 -0500 wayne <wayne(_at_)schlitt(_dot_)net> wrote:
In <200609150106(_dot_)32551(_dot_)scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> Scott
Kitterman
<scott(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> writes:
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx#EIB
That is the new MS stand on open use of their patents for web
standards, right?
Personally, I think we should let sleeping dogs lie. I suspect that
there are still a lot of hard feelings all around on this issue and
that MS never seriously intended to sue anyone for not signing their
license on their, uh, "questionable" patent. From what I can tell, a
great deal of the anti-spam systems that support "SenderID" are not
supporting the PRA and are just implementing SPF.
Whether they intended to sue or not is IMO beside the point. The threat
has a chilling effect (on me if no one else). IIRC, the patent was broader
than the specifics of PRA so that getting it into the pool of patents the
open source world needn't worry about would be a good thing.
Personally, I'm no fan of PRA on a technical basis, but I'd rather be in a
position to have the technical argument if it comes up.
I was plenty upset about the licensing issue at the end of MARID, but I
think this patent pool is evidence that they've changed and we ought to
give them a chance to show it.
Scott K
-------
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