Subject: DEPLOY: why I don't want Sender-ID as it is (IPR claims)

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:28:37 +0200

I do not want Sender-ID to proceed as it is, giving the IPR claims on
it.

The licence suggested here is unacceptable because:

* in practice, it limits free software implementations (because they
would be no longer really free, since the user will not be able to
modify and redistribute the software without a licence, and he will
not have a licence if it uses the software for something else than
Sender-ID). Section 2.2.

* it gives a company an undeserved acknowledgment that they developed
Sender-ID (in "recitals").

In addition to this, I agree with the following analysis and opinions:

* Yakov Shafranovich "IPR License and Custom Software Development"
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03639.html

* Paul Iadonisi "Microsoft Patent license unworkable with GPLed MTAs"
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03589.html

* Mark Shewmaker "Re: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License"
http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg03514.html

Do note that I'm convinced that the patents (which are not available
for reviewing, another issue) are futile and obvious and are
invalidated by prior-art. But I have no time or money to start a legal
action in a remote country.

I believe that there is unfortunately only one choice: dropping
-pra. Which means, in practice, going back to SPF-classic and starting
to work on SPF-unified.

Do note that I succeeded, following Ted Hardie's advice, in making my
reasoning company-independent :-) But I cannot fail to note that there
is no demonstrated will, from a certain company, to improve the
licence since they don't even reply to emails sent to their official
address.