Re: DEPLOY: Microsoft Royalty Free Sender ID Patent License FAQ

[George Mitchell <george@xxxxxxx>]

Koen Martens wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Again, I come out of the darkness of my lurking position and speak up my
> mind.
>
> I have been watching the discussions on this list continuously, and
> technically there is not a lot against Sender-ID (although some proper
> objections have been made, which I will not repeat here).
>
> I have been worried about the licensing issue, but have been convinced
> to wait it out. Now, with the 23 august deadline passed, I still see
> that there is reason for concern. Although a license has been prepared,
> it still does not say what exactly is licensed.
>
> I refer to Harry Katz' remark:
>
> > If you have any further questions about the license, I encourage you to
> > consult with your own attorney and/or email your question to
> > stdsreq@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx  Someone from our legal department will answer
> > your questions.
>
> I am not prepared to contact my attorney (i don't have one) to do
> open-source development on Sender-ID. For me, this means all work on
> Sender-ID is a nono. I will continue to labour for SPF+SRS. I can only
> hope the SPF Classic drafts (or better, Unified SPF) will be MARID's
> proposal, replacing the technically imperfect and legally troublesome
> Sender-ID proposal, but failing that I (and I believe many others) 
> will continue work on SPF.
>
> It would be a shame if this leads to a split, where one part of the
> industry/community works on Sender-ID and another works on SPF. This
> will frustrate the general cause we are 'fighting' for.
>
>
> Koen Martens
>
> P.s.: note that there are many people lurking on the list as did I,
> reluctant to step in and join a debate among real experts that seem to
> have a more than thorough knowledge of email. I hope many of them will
> step forward, and voice their concern about this IPR business now, or
> else it might just be too late.
>
> -- 
> K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
> Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
> Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
> Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
> can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/

I second Koen's remarks.  Based on these facts:

* SPF+SRS is embodied in working code.  (Two widely publicized
  implementations, and there are probably others.)
* SPF+SRS is deployed.
* SPF+SRS is not encumbered by any intellectual property claims.

what do you think we should do next?
-- George Mitchell