Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RMS Weighs In On SPF/Sender-ID License

Posted by timothy on from the application-declined dept.

NW writes "In a recent message to the MARID list RMS weighs in on the licensing issues of Sender-ID/SPF and Microsoft: 'Microsoft's Sender-ID license is directly incompatible with free software regardless of which free software license is used. Free software means users are free to run it, study and modify the source, and to redistribute it with or without changes. Free to do so means there is no requirement to ask or tell anyone that you are doing so.'" "MARID" stands for MTA Authorization Records in DNS; here's the IETF MARID working group's charter. (Read more below.)

Stallman's message continues: "The Microsoft license for Sender-ID directly forbids release of software with all these freedoms, so it is impossible for any program to be free software under Microsoft's regime. I've been expecting to see something like this ever since Gates started talking about spam. This license is an example of Microsoft's strategy for killing off free software as an alternative to Windows. Microsoft first patents something, then incorporates it into a format or protocol, then tries to make it de rigueur while excluding those it wishes to exclude. In the absence of resistance, Microsoft has a good chance of imposing whatever standards it likes. Let us, therefore, resist it here and now."

3 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Wow, this is shocking by Kadmium · · Score: 3, Funny

    Newsflash: OSS community dissatisfied with Microsoft's actions. The shock caused by this devastatingly original sentiment is almost immeasurable.

  2. Burying his head in the sand by NigelJohnstone · · Score: 4, Funny

    "1) This discussion has been unprofessional in the extreme. "

    Get a thicker skin.

    "2) The IETF is an engineering body, and it makes engineering decisions. It cares about licensing only as it affects the ability to implement and deploy a standard. "

    The wording requires you get a license from Microsoft and that any future products require a license too. So clearly this problem comes under the "ability to implement" part of the sentence.

    3) There is no such thing as a 'defensive' patent. Ted cannot see into the mind of Microsoft and determine their intent is to only use it for defence. Therefore he cannot make this statement with any substance behind it.

    4) Non substantial argument. The license is very clear, show me a lawyer that says otherwise.

    5) Agreed.

    "New drafts are now out, waiting for careful review. I urge the working group to review them carefully and to focus on how they can be interpreted, coded, and deployed. We have a lot of work to do. "

    Oh boy, we have a spec that has issues XYZ,
    he's telling them to look at X and only X. i.e. to ignore Y & Z and make a decision based on only part of the information.

  3. Look on the bright side... by Rob+Menke · · Score: 2, Funny

    If Microsoft were the only company to implement this protocol, it would be more effective than they ever dreamed:

    • If an e-mail uses the copyrighted protocol, then it must be coming through a Microsoft mail server because nobody else may implement it.
    • If it is coming through a Microsoft server, than it is more than likely to be coming from a Microsoft client.
    • If it is coming from a Microsoft client, than that client is more likely than not to have been compromised and is acting as a spam zombie.

    Microsoft should be congratulated, not censured, for coming up with such a scheme to help edge detection of spam.