RMS Weighs In On SPF/Sender-ID License

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."

Comments

Re:It's pretty simple

[thogard]

The problem is no one has done it yet.
Every poject seems to get hijacked into committees that never get the real work done.

Take SPF for example. It was mostly pushed by one guy into some code and that is starting to move on, but why do I need to do that much extra work when the existnig DNSBL stuff works and could be used in nearly every MTA as is without doing any extra code?

I worked on the X.400 Gossip committee back in '92 or so. The result was the system was too big to be useable and the complexity was so bad that no one ever got it right. The fundamental with email is that I want any person in the world to be able to send me a message but I don't want spam. The problem is there is no tehcnial way to tell them apart.

I do agree with RMS that going down the MS path is a dead end that will only result in MS getting more money and gives them the ability to kill off all open source systems with their patents and I know they will use them. The one thing we have learned about patents is that it doesn't matter at all if someone gives us rights to use it, they can change their mind and then we have to pay.

OK lets look at the license

[blowdart]

Here is the microsoft license. It applies to the original Microsoft Sender ID spec. This is not the new spec, where they merged with SPF.

So, the license RMS is ranting about doesn't apply, and there doesn't appear to be another license on the Microsoft site. Having said that the Microsoft license does not stop the distribution of source, in fact there's a specific clause allowing it (2.2), you just have to include a paragraph in the source code. Nor does RMS say what his problem is, aside from "Grrr, it's Microsoft".

Of course the SPF implementation is still "non-licensed", there's no mention of restrictions, although they do point out there are patents all over the anti-spam arena.

But hey, we don't expect people to look at this stuff, lets just add yet another protocol.

Re:OK lets look at the license

[dilvie]

Thank you for the clarification. This post is more informative than the original article. Incidentally, I think MTA authentication is a good idea, but I also think that all e-mail should be authenticated at every step, and encrypted using public-key encryption.

Validation, encryption, and a great anti-spam measure all in one. Is my logic flawed?

Re:Define 'free'

[KarmaMB84]

They *should* have called it "Freedom Software" rather than hijacking the word free and beating everyone over the head with insane "free as in..." rants when people are rightly confused.

Standard / IPR link

[Anonymous Coward]

The IPR disclosure as sent to the IETF Caller/Sender ID IPR.

That will eventually lead you to Microsoft's page on Sender ID. The actual licence agreement is halfway down the page (they refer to it as caller id and sender id interchangeably it seems).

If you do read the licence agreement you'll see that not only does an MTA developer have to sign/return it but so does an end-user _if_ and _only_ _if_ they want the source to their MTA.

That is, just about everyone. Additionally the language in the license explicitly makes it impossible to use with LGPL/GPL'd MTAs.

Re:One question for all of you...

[Pharmboy]

What really irks me is that rather than invent new solutions to existing problems, the free software community waits for a commercial vendor to implement a solution, and then copies it.

I'm sorry, but you totally miss the point here. First, you have to realize the original source of FOSS, which was Unix, before AT&T started suing people. Code was shared freely, thus the standards that the entire Internet are based on are either Free or PD. Apache isn't exactly a rip off of IIS. Sendmail is a clone of what? Inn, Perl, awk, sed? Most widely used software in the Free movement were designed to provide interoperability, or scratch an itch that a group had.

Yes, many products are like Open Office, designed to provide a Free (as in speech) alternative to commercial products. Most of the tools I use for mail servers, sendmail, spamassassin, clamav, etc. may have proprietary equivelents, but that is far from them being a clone of a proprietary program.

Isn't IE a proprietary implimentation of Mozaic? Doesn't Microsoft's FTP have a copyright notice to BSD inside? (yes, it does). What about MS's telnet client? Are these not proprietary implemintations of Free programs? What about ActiveState's port of Perl to win32? Wasn't MS chat a proprietary implimentation of IRC? I could go on and on.

When it comes to internet technology, the Open source community has contributed more than any close source company CAN, simply because everyone can participate freely. I think its fine that MS participates, the problem is: MS tends to be the last one to come to the party, and yet tends to think the party is in their honor. They use BSD code, but are not willing to contribute back. When it comes to internet standards, we should not have to PAY for using a standard. Use a proprietary product that uses the standard? Fine, charge what you want. But the standard itself MUST be truly free (any Free license) or the community is not going to be willing to participate, which of course, is MS's goal. "We had to set the standard, no one else would".

This kind of licensing is like the boss who says "we are partners" without a contract, and as soon as he starts making money, fires you.