Subject: RE: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:46:24 -0700

> Now, at the IETF-60 meeting, it was pointed out that qmail has a
> quirky license.  (Many/most people do not consider qmail to be Open
> Source Software because of its license.)   Basically, only the
> original author can modify qmail, all other changes must be
> distributed separately and applied as patches.  As the original author
> hasn't updated qmail for years, almost all qmail users take the
> original source and apply one or more sets of "patches" in order to
> create an MTA (mail server) which they can use.

> Would a qmail patch author qualify as a "licensed implementation" and
> thus someone who takes qmail and creates a derivative work of it by
> apply the patch qualify as an "end user"?

> If not, wouldn't this mean that users of qmail that want to support
> SenderID (which we hope will be all of them) need to get a license
> from Microsoft?

Or an alternative MTA :-)

> Section 1.2 gives the definition of a "Licensed Implementation",
> which, in the second of the two (ii) clauses, requires you to have
> branded trademark.  Do any patches have trademarks?

Apache began as a set of patches to the NCSA web server so it would 
appear to be the case.

There are several cases where a software product has been created 
as a configuration of another system, why not distribute the 
configuration in patch form?

If I had to patch Qmail the way I would do it is as follows:

1) First write a patch that allows the server to load in sharable
object libraries as part of the startup procedure.

2) Write a second patch that causes the sharable object libraries
to be called during the appropriate processing stages (c.f. the
schemes used to load plugins into Netscape servers, IIS etc.)

3) Write the Sender-ID plug in as a separate stand alone sharable
object library that is initialized and called from QMAIL.

4) Get a Sender-ID license for the plug in separately from the
patches required to make it work.

Incidentally, I would do it that way regardless of the license 
restrictions. If the code is written in the right way you can 
shed and reinstall libraries without having to shut down mail
processing.

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:26:55 -0500

> Or an alternative MTA :-)

I'm not sure that is really a joking matter.  We aren't supposed to
talk about "hidden agendas", but since you raised the issue, I'll ask
directly:

Is your goal in supporting the SenderID license to get people to use
"an alternative MTA", say the one that Harry and Jim work on?

> [ideas snipped]

Your scheme does not match the design of qmail.  What you are
suggesting is a major rewrite of the qmail MTA.

One of the reasons for using the PRA is the claim that it would be
easier to support than SPF-classic and SRS.  However, there have long
been patches for qmail to do SPF-classic and SRS, but now you are
claiming that the way to do PRA is to do a major rewrite of one of the
most popular MTAs on the Internet.

-wayne

---

From: Margaret Olson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:38:52 -0400

On Aug 26, 2004, at 8:26 AM, wayne wrote:

>
> In  
> <[email-masked] 
> > "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]> writes:
>

Wayne and others.
I largely agree with Phill, but let me try to present the issue a  
slightly different way. I use several MTA implementations, both  
commercial and open source. I've concluded that the current license  
will allow me to continue to have a good selection of open source and  
commercial choices with Sender ID implementations. Open source is open  
source - Sender ID is sufficiently valuable that I'm convinced that  
viable Sender ID variants will emerge, even if they are not distributed  
in quite the same way that the code is today. Both Eric Allman and  
Phill have discussed ways to approach this problem. I am speaking as  
someone who intends to implement receive side Sender ID as soon as  
possible.

So while the license is less than ideal, it's sufficient. It is also  
fundamentally defensive, and anyone with significant assets  
contemplating donating IPR has to concern themselves with the defensive  
legal issues. The fundamental goal is to make sure you can use your own  
IPR after you have donated it, which is otherwise not assured. I would  
not like to see contributions to the IETF limited to individuals and  
corporations who are not successful enough to have this kind of legal  
concern. For one thing, it would rule out all organizations with  
significant R&D budgets. Followed to it's logical conclusion, this  
approach to license requirements give us problems even with open source  
donations, since some of the open source licenses are mutually  
incompatible.

I have also had the impression that some folks on the list are  
expecting Microsoft to give them what amounts to legal advice. A lawyer  
representing me, being paid by me, can't give you legal advice about  
how to deal with me - there is a conflict of interest.  So where  
Microsoft  does provide clarifications or suggestions it will be  
caveated it left and right with "consult your own lawyer" just to make  
sure you are not confused about whose interests are being represented.  
This is how the legal system works; it's not some sort of Microsoft  
conspiracy to make everyone waste money on legal advice.

In the spirit of frugality, I applaud Wayne's contacting of Eben  
Moglen. It's always a good idea to avoid paying a lawyer (or anyone  
else, for that matter) to come up to speed on a particular subject.

Margaret.

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:32:24 -0400

> someone who intends to implement receive side Sender ID as soon as  

The problem is not limited to open source or commercial. The main issue 
at hand is whether this specific license would be detrimental to 
deployment at large of this standard (in my personal opinion, the main 
place where this issue will come to play out is not the main open source 
and commercial email applications, but rather within ISPs and small 
companies that want to implement this in-house).

The question we should be asking is whether this specific license will 
be detrimental to deployment of Sender-ID at large. While you argue that 
alternatives will emerge, others including potential implementors have 
made points as to why this license may scare away potential 
implementors. The problem is that we really don't know until the 
standard is approved which makes it kind of a catch-22.

...

> else, for that matter) to come up to speed on a particular subject.

In the context of the original question that is posted - how will this 
affect deployment, the lawyer issue is rather important. If a signficant 
number of potential implementors will not want to implement Sender-ID 
because they are unsure about what they are signing and cannot afford a 
lawyer, it will be detrimental to the overall success of the standard.

Yakov

---

From: Margaret Olson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 09:38:52 -0400

Wayne and others.

Margaret.

---

From: Yakov Shafranovich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:32:24 -0400

.

Yakov

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:05:28 -0400

> expecting Microsoft to give them what amounts to legal
> advice.

Your missing an important point:

Some folks on the list asked for clarification of the license.  Harry then referred them to consult
with the MS lawyers (as opposed to answering the questions himself).

Being told to "go ask my lawyer"  is fundamentally different then "expecting legal advice from
Microsoft".

> A lawyer representing me, being paid by me, can't give you legal advice about
> how to deal with me - there is a conflict of interest.
AGREED!

That's why Harry should have answered the questions himself, or with a response from his lawyers.
Instead he opted to say "go ask my companies lawyers.  I don't think that was an acceptable
response, if for no other reason then the LAWYERS are not list members, and HARRY is.

> So where

AGREED.  Again a point to why HARRY should answer the questions asked of him, and/or produce a
license which is more concise.

Terry Fielder
Manager Software Development and Deployment
Great Gulf Homes / Ashton Woods Homes
[email-masked]
Fax: (416) 441-9085

---

From: Ryan Ordway <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:13:54 -0700

On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 06:38, Margaret Olson wrote:
> significant R&D budgets. 

	If this was the extent of the license, I would agree with
you Margaret. I have no problems with Microsoft protecting themselves.
I have problems with Microsoft attempting to prevent competitors,
both commercial and open source, from being able to implement
Internet standards without tying themselves to Microsoft. 

	Ryan
-- 
HELO, my name is root... you have SIGKILLed my father... prepare to vi!