Slashdot Mirror
MS Releases License For Sender-ID
NW writes "Microsoft published today a new license and FAQ for Sender-ID anti-spam standard being developed by the IETF's MARID WG (based on SPF). To use the license, a signed agreement with MSFT is required. Compatability with the Open Source Definition, the
Free Software Definition, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and the GPL/LGPL licenses is already in question."
FAQ for Microsoft's
Royalty-Free Sender ID Specification License
Microsoft Corporation
August 2004
Q1: What is the purpose of the patent license?
A1: The adoption of Sender ID is important for the industry and Microsoft wants to facilitate the
adoption of the standard by licensing its necessary patent rights on a royalty free basis and
encouraging others to license their patent rights that cover the Sender ID specification similarly
on a royalty-free basis. That is why Microsoft's license includes all of Microsoft's current and
pending patent rights that are necessary to implement the Sender ID specification not just the
pending patent application claims Microsoft is currently aware of.
Q2: Doesn't having a patent on Sender ID complicate the process of getting it adopted as
an IETF standard?
A2: No. It should not. There are dozens and dozens of patent rights that have been disclosed to
the IETF that may cover IETF standards. See http://www.ietf.org/ipr.html for a complete list. We
are not aware of any of these patents complicating the standards process especially where the
patent owner has provided an assurance that it would make licenses available on a royalty-free
basis with other reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions as Microsoft has done
here.
Q3: Why is Microsoft asking people to take a license?
A3: In order to promote Sender ID, Microsoft is pleased to offer its necessary Sender ID patent
rights on a royalty-free basis but only to those who are also willing to make their Sender ID
patents available on a reciprocal royalty-free basis. The license is also important to Microsoft for
defensive reasons. The reciprocity provisions and the ability to reserve defensive rights for
Microsoft's implementations of standards are very important elements in our decision to
contribute technology to standards.
Q4: When do I need to execute a license with Microsoft?
A4: At this time Microsoft is only aware of pending patent application claims that cover its
submission of the Sender ID specification. Because Microsoft is not aware of any issued patent
claims, Microsoft does not require any one to sign a license with Microsoft to implement the
Sender ID specification or any part of it that is incorporated into IETF working drafts. In
conformance with the IETF IPR policy Microsoft has disclosed the existence of those pending
patent claims and has provided its assurance that if such claims are granted Microsoft will make
licenses available on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Microsoft has also gone beyond
the IETF's requirements by clarifying that its licenses will require no fees or other royalties, and
further, to make a license available to early adopters who wish at their option to clarify their rights
with Microsoft with respect to early implementations. Typically patent holders do not make their
license terms available until after the standard has been adopted and until after their patent
claims have been granted, leaving early implementers to speculate as to the ultimate terms of the
license.
Q5: What do I need to do for binary and/or source code distribution?
A5: Many open source licenses require you to include copyright notices distributed in the code
itself identifying the authors of the code being distributed. Some open source licenses also
require you to include the license under which you received the code with the code that you
distribute so that downstream users of the code are made aware of the terms and conditions
under which they can use the code. Microsoft does not require any notice or other attribution
when you disclose or distribute your implementation in binary form. However, if you disclose or
distribute your implementation in source code form, we think it is important for you to include a
patent attribution (from sec. 2.2 of our royalty-free patent license) in your source code and in
close proximity to the license under which you make your sou
How long will it be before you have to have a signed agreement with Microsoft to send an email?
Why not use something like gnupg to sign email in order to prove the identity of the sender?
it's 'compatibility'.
Just thought I'd do my part to halt the spread of bad spelling.
Thank you and have a nice day.
That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
Seriously, does Microsoft think that highly of themselves that they can dictate a standard that requires a license from them? Sure they have a majority of the OS and E-mail clients, but I doubt they have a majority of the Mail Servers out there.
In the current climate you could never produce a HTTP/SMTP type protocol because everyone is out to make money and gain power. What Microsoft has done is take a relatively open protocol and slapped a 'Microsoft Property' sticker on it, this will effectively limit its usefulness even if they are not charging a penny.
What is stopping them from letting it catch on and then asking for $1 from each project?
Three drops of blood
Other fluids (defined in separate document)
Provide access for nanoprobes (Resistance is futile, after all.)
I'm in!
you have to laugh at their cheek, well its license free or you can forget it microsoft, its not open to debate , email is not for sale at ANY price
because its patented and i have to enter a non-negotiable deal i shall continue with regular smtp until the FOSS community can suggest something else
What a rediculous error
Just thought I'd do my part to halt the spread of bad spelling.
It's a priviledge to meet one such as you.
OpenBSD did it when they made CARP. Cisco wouldn't play so not only did the OBSD team create a new solution but they created a superior solution. Is there any reason why the FOSS community could not come up with an alternative and try submitting it to the IETF? (I do know that the OBSD developers got stuffed when they tried this but maybe it might work here.)
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
So... Microsoft claims to be fighting the good fight on spam. But they then require a license to use Sender ID. It's my hope that people will have the sense to use regular SPF, and let Sender-ID die.
Everytime someone submits the licensing paperwork to Microsoft, someone at Microsoft must spend time (and therefore money) to process it.
Let the slashdotting begin!
This small blurb was sponsored by your favorite running shoes
I like Yahoo's DomainKeys solution more; it's open and Sendmail already supports it.
:(
see http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys
Sadly, what I like usually loses the battle. I am sure that all the MS-sexchange-servers out there will start using/insisting on SenderID...
You mean you haven't signed your agreement yet? Maybe that's why your email to me bounced.
But did anyone actually read the article? You don't need to sign the agreement to implement sender ID. They are just pre-emptively giving out the agreement that would be necessary if their pending patent is granted.
This is it! Of course we've seen things like this before, but Microsoft is preparing to ensure its eternal monopoly by making sure no one can leave its systems. It would be just fine by Redmond if no one could send e-mail without proper authorization. But now that we've got patented standards, expect to see locked-in Office files, network protocols, the works. Most people and companies really couldn't switch from Windows if they could no longer open their files or network with a Windows machine. The fact that Microsoft is willing to pull this now when some high-level spam solution is required is just reprehensible. In light of their withdrawal from the UN standards committee today I think we're seeing how the next 5 years is going to go.
Just to get everyone up to speed:
- SPF (http://spf.pobox.com) is the current email authentication protocol that is dominating the world.
- Microsoft proposed Caller ID which was never accepted by the community.
- Microsoft and SPF advocate Meng Weng Wong brokered a deal and formed Sender ID. Basically, SPF is intact, but some features of Caller ID are preserved as an optional extension.
The part of Caller ID that remains is the PRA or "Purported Responsible Authority". The PRA is deteremined by a complicated algorithm that I personally don't believe would work. The algorithm is intentionally vague in some areas, and the results are ultimately subjective. The intention of the PRA algorithm is to determine who wrote the email based on the email headers. As everyone knows, the email headers are spoofable. But the idea goes, if you can track down the PRA, then you can authenticate this email based on that, rather than just the last hop like SPF does.
The problem from day one has been the patent issue. Microsoft is in the process of patenting the PRA algorithm. This isn't a problem. The problem is that Microsoft refuses to put the patent in the public domain or license the patent such that anyone can use it except those who use patents against Microsoft. Both of those strategies are perfectly reasonable, and are pretty much what IBM does for most of its patents.
Microsoft originally wanted to get a copy of the software and a signature before they would grant a license. Well, that doesn't work for F/OSS. The MARID working group who is investigating various solutions to the email authentication protocol for the IETF has been petitioning Microsoft to revise or clarify their licensing procedure. Well, they finally have, and in so doing they have not made it F/OSS compatible.
Microsoft thinks they can bully us around, but they don't realize they are the small kid on the email block. Their Caller ID failed. Now Sender ID is going to fail because Microsoft refuses to participate.
But that's okay. The PRA algorithm isn't anything we'll need to solve the email authentication problem.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Guh, what do you want them to say to please you? "Microsoft RULEZ!!!"???
Please, take a moment and think before you post. Are you contributing anything worthwhile to this dicussion?
We can just point to this and say "look, if you pass software patents, Microsoft owns usable email in Europe, not just the American Reich. Do you want that to happen?".
Many of the corrupt fuckers will say "yes", of course, but that just makes it easier to shoot the bastards in the nigh-on inevitable bloody revolution...
As long as the IETF maintains a global perspective, it can not accept standards encumbered by IP more restrictive than the GPL. It seems obvious -- we've all benefited by open standards on the Internet. But who knows, stranger things have happened.
This could be a good test case. MS may continue to pursue its IP Holy Grail business model, but if the IETF can stand firm and refuse restrictive licensing, they will not be able to force it down the world's throat. On the other hand, if the IETF does accept these kinds of IP restrictions, MS may have a path forward in pursuing its new business model of patents and copyrights for obvious and trivial ideas.
to 0wn email.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Whew.. I almost thought I saw Microsoft and standard
used in the same sentence. That was a close one.
On the open source side, the sendmail MTA is routinely bundled into other larger systems, notably open source operating system releases such as Linux and BSD distributions as well as commercial closed-source systems such as Solaris and AIX. Bundlers would need to execute their own copy of the RFSIPL. Those systems are in turn sometimes incorporated into other products, which would seemingly require another layer of patent licenses, and so on down the tree. As a practical matter, this makes the decision to include sendmail with Sender ID into their release more problematic. This is obviously not desirable from our point of view.
And...
While these are pragmatic rather than legal reasons, our likely decision at Sendmail will be to distribute our Sender ID implementation as a separate package that is not required to run the sendmail MTA under a distinct (possibly modified) Sendmail Open Source license. Open source users will have the option of downloading and installing the Sender ID package should they want the additional functionality. Bundlers will be able to choose whether they want to include the Sender ID technology or not, but will still be able to use the base sendmail MTA without additional IPR issues.
I'll be really interested to find out what the take of some Linux Distros will be on this.This is specifically going to cause problems for the GPL.
I mean hello??? Microsoft *can* withdraw their patent at any point in the future - or start to charge for it. Even if one open source author implements it MS win. This is merely an attempt to embrase and extend open source. The sad thing is before Microsoft end up being replaced largely by Open Source (and they will even if it takes 100 years) they are going to start fighting more and more ugly.
Also, surely patents, particularly software patents, are an infringement of freedom of speech?
For the majority of Windows users, Outlook is the default email client they end up using. All Microsoft has to do is annoy/frighten/nag Outlook users everytime they recieve a non-Sender-ID email. "WARNING: This email message came come an unverified location. Would you like to file this email in safe folder and view it later?" or words to that affect is all it takes. Eventually users complain to their networks ops about these vague warning errors and lost emails then the annoyed network ops eventually patch their email servers to comply with Microsoft Sender-ID just to appease Outlook users. The standard is adopted.
So everyone shares their patents with MS, but not with each other, MS gets all patent rights, and everyone else has to fend for themselves? Where is the strategic advantage for everyone to jump on board exactly?
.sig: Open Source, Open Mind
So now nobody will implement this, and Microsoft, through patenting something obvious and trying to license it has scared everyone away from some pretty good ideas that would have been implemented otherwise, with or without Microsoft's help.
This is just the latest chapter in IP stupidity.
This stuff has been discussed for years, if this had been treated like most other W3C standards we'd be in the clear by now waiting for implementations, instead everyone's scared. Does anyone realistically think that there aren't patents that W3C standards already infringe? Finally we actually get rights to something and we're inspecting the teeth, simply because the subject has been raised.
The crazy part of this whole deal is that most software is riddled with potential patent violations, including Microsoft's and including projects like Mozilla, Gimp and Open Office. That's why MS are trying to retain *defensive* rights, because they know it would be dangerous to give this IP away, anyone could stand on their shoulders, and a widget and then sue them (and that has happened already) and Microsoft would have no way of countering. If they adopted a more GPL oriented license with the rights being rescinded in the event of any patent suit against M$ it would be golden. They could just do to the protagonists what IBM has just done to SCO, infact that wording is almost already in the GPL.
I think this situation can be salvaged with another revision of the license. We should not give up on this or go for the second best option on such an improtant proposal.
We're getting to witness what the beginning of the web would have been like had Tim Bernards Lee patented some of his ideas. It ain't going to be pretty.
" Compatability with the Open Source Definition, the Free Software Definition, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and the GPL/LGPL licenses is already in question."
on the birth of your child. We know that bringing an infant up in the 21st century is a daunting business. Thats why we have designed especially for you a completely free licensing policy agreement that will safeguard young (enter name) from the burden of facing a bleak future without a licensed, activated copy of our latest (enter name) operating system or proprietary value added software.
As a further benefit, our intellectual protection package will ensure that your young tit sucker's ideas will never fall into the hands of enscrupulous (note the en..) parties and will be safe in our creativity vault.
Just sign the punch out card below with (name)'s new citizen number and we will do the rest. Just think how (name) will thank you. (snicker snicker..)
(small print: nyk nyk nyk! All your intellect is belong to us! Wahhhah hah!)
My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
and omitted any info about sendmail's participation in this. Interestingly, Newsforge has a slightly better (though still flawed) story on the whole isue that includes sendmail.
Leave it to Michael to post some flame in an instance where Eric Allman argues that Microsoft has made signficant changes in the license in an effort to work closely with open-source vendors.
Is just ridiculous. How many things must something be "compatible" (whatever that means in each context) with before it can be considered "good" considering most of you can't make up your minds about them to begin with?
...blatent troll snipped...
It's considered good when anyone can play the game under the exact same rules, regardless of how much money, prestige and lawyers they have. That's what an "Open Standard" is defined as - an agreement on a set of rules that is there for all to see and use. Microsoft still doesn't get the "Open" part, it seems.
Sigh.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
Good grief, the trolls around here really have too much time on their hands.
...just how evil a single company can be. Microsoft seems to be completely committed to the singular goal of destroying everyone and everything that might ever compete with it, using whatever tactics (legal or not) it can come up with. The quirky thing about MS's antics are that unlike IBM making money doesn't seem to be the primary goal, but rather establishing control dominance. MS acts more like a government yearning for dictatorship than a for-profit institution.
It's crap like this that makes me think a well-placed nuke is going to be the only way to stop MS from acting like a cheap cyber version of Ghenghis Khan.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
SPF works, it does exactly what it is designed to do what reason would there be to use Sender-ID?
SPF works today with existing software - I'm at a loss to why anyone would want Sender-ID apart from Microsoft.
I'm sure Microsoft people will install it all blindly (no change there) but if a significant number of mail servers don't implement and or deploy it then it has failed anyway.
----
If the license they use is not compatable with use in an open source tool, and their system ends up taking off, then the end result is that all people using open source e-mail clients will be misidentified as "spammers" and thus unable to send e-mail to people who do participate in this system.
Are you unable to see what's bad about that - cutting all open source out of the use of e-mail - so that this once open standard gets nicely hijacked and "owned" by MS?
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I know this is yet-another-example-of-MS-is-teh-evil ... blah blah .... Is just ridiculous. How many things must something be "compatible" ...
When you are talking about email protocols, you are darned tooting right that nobody wants to have to 'ask nicely to Microsoft' for the permission to implement the standard.
Simplified for our trolling friend here: if you want people to play by certain rules you don't first tell them they need to ask you first if it's ok for them to obey those rules.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
Personally I dont feel this is a big deal unless you make it one. You can access the source code, you can redistribute the only catch is you have to acknowledge the patent. Unless someone can give me specific examples of why this violates the GPL and other open source licenses other than "Its Microsoft and Microsoft is evil" I do plan to deliver a software application utilizing this technology for Linux. I may be contacted at:
robertojdohnert@msn.com
That's nice. However, what you and your friends think about Microsoft is one thing - what the world at large thinks about you when you claim that some standard or license or patent isn't compatible with your five slightly different interpretations of the words "open" and "free" is another.
1> Get desktop monopoly
2> Distribute insecure mail servers, websites
3> Wait for spam wave to create demand for "my Internet back"
4> Publish licensed antispam standard
5> Get email monopoly
6> Profit!
--
make install -not war
As reported yesterday:
Josh Ledgard: Would you have interest in working on these types of projects with Microsoft? If not, what could entice you?
Stop pulling stupid shit like this perhaps?
The DFSG/OSI definition is sufficient, and you're a known microsoft astroturfer. Why do you even bother?
And M$ isn't supposed to be funny - it's a commentary on Micro$oft's rapacious greed. The $ symbolises evil in most places outside the U$A now.
From what I've seen looking at the major FOSS development communities you listed they code and just keep moving on. Nobody is really wasting tons of time going on COLA and spending hours debating whether it should be GNU/Linux or just Linux.
Now the people that are debating this in the IETF? Well that's their job. This stuff needs to get sorted out so the proposed standard can be applied as widely as possible. Considering how deep FOSS is in the email infrastructure I, as a user and administrator, want this debate on whether the proposed changes are compatible or not.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
I know, prison wasn't kind to Max. Too many guys he had to "dance" with.
Stay away from the kids next time Max
sez the AC.
. . . software that is easy to use and doesn't require an IQ of 160 to configure (end user testing would also be good)
I agree that end user testing would be good, but frankly I like software targeted at users with an IQ of 160. There's a real place for software you don't have to be that bright just to get something done.
KFG
There are lots of other examples at http://ietf.org/ipr.html with
fairly similar "don't sue me and you can use it" terms. The IPR
terms being offered here almost look like a cut and paste job, to
be honest, and that may not be a bad thing. There actually
can be advantages to someone holding a defensive patent:
It means someone who wants to use a submarine patent to
control this technology has to fight Microsoft's lawyers.
Microsoft's grant is: 1) subject to any denial of claims by
the USPTO, 2) Royalty-free (as in beer), 3) Non-discriminatory
(anyone, anywhere, any time). Other submarine patents might
not be nearly so nice, and I'd rather have the next guy along
sue Microsoft than me.
There are some pain in the rump aspects; it is not:
sublicensable (everyone has to get their own free thing).
It does require you license back whatever you have claims on
that is needed for Sender-ID to get their thing needed
for Sender-ID (this is common in the IPR declarations given
to the IETF). That, in my humble not-a-lawyer opinion is
why you have to let them know your use is under the free,
global, yadda-yadda license rather than being an
infringement of the patent.
The good news: this does not require those deploying
Sender-ID records to do anything. It does not
require anyone using packaged binary software to do
anything. It does not require anyone distributing
packaged binary software to do anything.
It's a minor pain for implementors and a hassle for distributors
(who may, like Sendmail, have to put the Sender-ID code in a
different distribution). Not ideal, but not enough of a pita,
in my opinion, to go without the technology. Especially if
their claims cover things like "storing MTA authorization records
in the DNS" (and they could), rejecting this could mean rejecting
the whole ball of wax as an anti-forgery tool.
Who wins then?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...or does MS REALLY over-use the words "royalty free"? Sounds fishy from the git-go.
[SIG] Remember Mattel handheld games?
From what I can tell there are a few people here with some mis-conceptions. You don't need to sign a license to use a mail client utilizing this specification. You only need to sign this agreement if you plan to re-distribute an executable or the code to end-users. The only difference between this and your average open source agreement, is they want it in writing and the agreement is reciprocol. As far as the standard beeing worth anything, I'll leave that up to the more technically minded... W.E.P.
What wit the two of you possess. It seems all that time in your parents' basement has honed your sense of humor to a razors edge.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
considering they will be rendered irrelevant, since they won't be able to make anythng anymore because MS will just sue them for violating a patent they have rights to and nobody else does? Pick one, MS will have many.
Because that requires changes to end-user behaviour.
.sig along with the domain owner key in a DNS record, fixing the security problems. (The advantage of using PGP for this is that, unlike web-style certs, there's no need to screw with a limited set of roots -- people naturally extend their web of trust.)
In any case, a signature doesn't prove identity unless you or somebody in your web of trust has checked the fingerprint. This means that it's only a little more useful than a manual whitelist when it comes to avoiding spam.
Yeah, but it'd be just as easy to piggyback GPG onto DNS (have a GPG keypair for each domain, the public key of which is distributed via DNS, that is considered "trusted" for the purposes of verifying each email -- it would sign the user's key, which would sign the email). During transition, it would be possible to do the user signing on the server.
This would allow user-level granularity and fix a vast number of problems with the existing schemes -- frankly SPF and Caller ID are nothing more than fairly bad authentication schemes, whereas GPG is mature, well tested, and strong.
Piggybacking on the insecure DNS isn't good, but admins unaware of the security issues in doing so seem hell-bent on doing so, using this scheme in all of the existing mechanisms. And after the problems inevitably surface, after spammers start spoofing DNS, if GPG is used, it'll be easy to have registrars have their *own* keys that sign domain owner pubkeys, and include the
May we never see th
Microsoft has a whole lot more leverage to push their own solution. If Microsoft decides that their way is the way to go, they can implement it in all of their product offerings, thus forcing others to follow suit or risk being cut off from the vast majority of the Internet using public.
SPF is not necessary for exchanging electronic mail. If Microsoft servers fail to exchange mail with any significant number of OSS mail servers, the result won't be that OSS gives up and everybody signs patent license agreements with Microsoft, but rather that SPF won't get used. The long term fall-out would be that people would take Microsoft even less seriously when they come to standards bodies, and to hurt IETF credibility even further (IETF is already largely irrelevant).
Microsoft is apparently trying to play hard-ball with OSS developers, forcing them to accept some kind of licensing terms or forcing them to stop developing this kind of software. But OSS developers don't have a choice: there simply is no way under which OSS developers can give in to Microsoft's licensing terms, even if they wanted to, since the terms are just fundamentally incompatible with most OSS licenses.
Furthermore, going to IETF with such standards proposals is pointless: the only producers of software that count in this space are Microsoft and OSS. If IETF starts producing standards under terms that are not acceptable to OSS developers, then that just makes the IETF irrelevant but it won't help with adoption of a solution.
In this case, if IETF's SPF standard isn't 100% compatible with OSS licenses, OSS software will not incorporate it and Microsoft Exchange installations will be unable to use IETF SPF with a significant fraction of Internet hosts. If Microsoft were competing with a commercial vendor of mail server software, that vendor would be in deep trouble and it might induce that vendor to come crawling to Microsoft begging for a license. But OSS developers won't do that: OSS projects don't have the same kinds of short-term pressures on them as commercial software vendors, and even if they wanted to give in, OSS licenses make it impossible.
Microsoft's management just doesn't seem to understand that they are not dealing with another business anymore: the strategies that they have used against commercial competitors just don't work against OSS. All they are accomplishing with this sort of behavior is to taint their own credibility and the credibility of the standards bodies they get involved.
How many things must something be "compatible" (whatever that means in each context) with before it can be considered "good" considering most of you can't make up your minds about them to begin with?
This isn't a question of "good" or "making up one's mind" or "arguing". The patent licensing requirements are just incompatible with the GPL and other OSS licenses--that's a legal fact. Therefore, IETF SPF can't be fully implemented by OSS--there is nothing to debate or negotiate or decide.
Now, there are two possible consequences: either hundreds of thousands of OSS developers throw away all their existing code (whose licenses they can't change) and start over, or they just don't implement IETF SPF. Which one do you think is more likely to happen?
you'd be giving Microsoft a run for their money by now.
OSS developers generally don't care about Microsoft's money; the only thing they care about is when Microsoft interferes with their ability to develop and use software.
No Thanks pretty much sums it up. Not sure what else to add to that.
Ok all the stupid people in the world raise your patent glasses!
Just how flippin' stupid does MS like we are.
Royalty free MS licence... now theres a nice oxy-moron for you.
Embrace, Extend... Embrace, Extend... Embrace, Extend... Embrace, Extend... ANY QUESTIONS?!
Read the thread. It's clear that this is yet another example of software patents stalling or outright halting technology development.
Ok, so Microsoft seems to be trying to assert patent rights on Sender ID, in a fashion that makes open source difficult to implement.
Can anyone tell us what is stopping the Free world from simply reverting back to plain old SPF and ignoring Microsoft's extensions?
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
i'm not sure if it's a client issue or a server issue (SPF confines itself to server concerns from what i can tell, leaving the clients to be lightweight/stupid, but Sender-ID may be entirely different, for all i know), but, either way, if the e-mail world "forks" and there is a world for MS clients and servers and a world for everybody else, MS does nothing but monopolize the SPAM-afflicted e-mail world of its making unto itself, leaving the unfortunate incompatibles in a world without Windows clients and servers to be hijacked and used as SPAM sources, and the presence of Sender-ID will become nothing more than a tip-off to drop a SPAM-bearing connection/message/whatever bears its hallmark, just as
Server: Microsoft-IIS/xxx
currently serves notice that you're entering the world of trustworthy web servers keeping the world ``safe for scripting'' for those with a cooperative and feature-rich web browser that can help automate mundane tasks like installing spyware and opening helpful chm files
so, yeah, good riddance to MS stuff in standards-based e-mail space. if they will fully retrench to their selling-everybody-on-MSN scheme, all the better
Look, I don't mean to be a wanker here, but all of you who are all gung-ho about SPF and happy-happy-happy about working with some whizz-bang IETF project to bring on board the likes of AOL and MSFT are ... gullible and naive. It's amazing how really smart people can do some really dumb things.
How many times do we have to go through this in order to understand this fact?
Any time that you do any business with Microsoft Corporation, either with the intention of cooperative standards development or for money, you will always, always, always get the short end of the stick.
Microsoft is very simple. They are a parasitic entity that will not have any engagement with other entities unless there is the distinct advantage that they will walk away with more than you do.
Now that you've reverted SPF so some Classic-SPF that has already been identified to have loop-holes in the technology to allow spammers to hit you again, what are you going to do? Sell your next of kin to Bill Gates?
I'm not surprised at all by MSFT's actions. But I'm postively disgusted that anyone would be some stupid as to think for one minute that it might work out OK.
Everytime you work with windows you hurt Open Source Development
Instead of focusing on the speculative theories on how Microsoft can use this in its attempt for work domination, let's look at the facts: 1. This is free. It's stated in the IETF draft and the licensing agreement. If Microsoft starts charging you, you can sue them for breach of contract. 2. Spam is a huge problem in many aspects. Microsoft is one of the most powerful forces in the software industry and is providing a way to help alleviate the spam problem. 3. It is compatible with open source applications (including sendmail). All they ask is for you to put a disclaimer if you distribute the source code that says "this part of the code is patented by Microsoft". When was attributing the author a major problem? If you just don't want to use a solution to a major problem just because it comes from Microsoft, even though it's quite obviously free to use and distribute as long as you put a small disclaimer in the source cord...you're a moron (imho). Scrutiny is good. Speculation in the process of scrutiny process is good. Speculation for the sake of moving your personal agenda (as opposed to the needs of the internet community) is moronic and selfish (imho). If everyone that reads this article can agree that there is a problem with spam, this a step forward and solving the problem (and is free to use and distribute), and pledges their support today...won't that be great and historic day for the internet community...even if your not a huge fan of Microsoft Corporation? MrJohnnyG
The purpose of spam is to attract a response from a reader. This requires delivery and viewing. It also often requires a direct response, such as clicking on a link, though the response may simply be remembering the message if it's, say, an advertisment.
On the other hand, a spammer being paid to spam for someone else will have different goals. They will care more about deliveries, or web-bug hits, etc than real effects - because the chances are that's how their pay is calculated. For those people, I think you're at least partially right - the purpose is still to be read, but the goal and method of measuring success is deliveries or views.
And just because I can, and I love pissing off Mensa members and the Billy-G Blowjob Team:
"And if we didn't have to wade through the crap that trolls like you post on a regular basis, the overall IQ of Slashdot would jump high enough to qualify everyone here for Mensa."
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
> The patent licensing requirements are just incompatible with >the GPL and other OSS licenses--that's a legal fact. Therefore, >IETF SPF can't be fully implemented by OSS--there is nothing >to debate or negotiate or decide.
Having read thru the thread on the madrid mailing list this
is a patently false statement. There is disagreement about
wether or not there is a problem. The IETF Legal counsel
has not to the best of my knowledge published a finding one
way or the other.
As most people on the Net are not lawyers it might actaully be
more useful to look at this license in terms of how it compares
to other licenses granted the IETF. Is it more or less restrictive?
Even if it does pass the sniff test it may be that it takes a step
down the road to being more restictive then we would like.
On the otherh and if it looks like all the legalese from all
the other companies then maybe it'll be ok.
The Open Source definition states clearly:
Clearly, this would be violated if using the source would require execution of a license with Microsoft. That the MARID people don't understand this is just a testament to how naive they are.
The IETF Legal counsel has not to the best of my knowledge published a finding one way or the other.
Well, another example of how out of touch the IETF is; this is something that IETF Legal counsel should have checked during negotiations with Microsoft and before much work was expended on the standard.
As most people on the Net are not lawyers it might actaully be
more useful to look at this license in terms of how it compares
to other licenses granted the IETF. Is it more or less restrictive?
You're missing the point. The point is that the question of whether the IETF standard will be adopted by OSS is not something that OSS developers have the power to decide or negotiate over (as the parent poster suggested), it doesn't depend on whether the license is "good" or "more restrictive" or "less restrictive", and it doesn't depend on whether Microsoft is making an honest effort or trying to control the world. Whether the IETF standard will be adopted by OSS simply depends on whether the licenses required for the IETF standard are compatible with the definition of OSS. If they aren't, then, by definition, OSS software can't implement it.
MARID means sick in the Maltese language... someone must not have done his homework well :-)
---
There are sites that are custom crafted to some version of IE, but actually there are not many, and they are not "leadership" sites. The sites that people look to for examples of what to do are all sites that are written to the standards, not to Microsoft's current bugs. I'm thinking of sites like A List Apart.
"And for the trademark, it is the opinion of Microsoft that "Sender ID" is too generic to be a valid trademark. He then solicited questions from the floor."
Yeah ... Windows ... Office ... are no too generic, eh ?
#include "coucou.h"
If the license they use is not compatable with use in an open source tool, and their system ends up taking off, then the end result is that all people using open source e-mail clients will be misidentified as "spammers" and thus unable to send e-mail to people who do participate in this system.
That only will happen if say at least 95% of all smtp servers are run by microsoft software and this isn't the case. The rejection rate of e-mail will be too high. If this happens, email will be dying slowly.
Why would one need to read their own comments? Seems a rather pointless exercise - barring one of ego - to me...
:)
Just an observation
I remember when transparent terminals came out in E ( called ETerms ). They were the coolest thing i'd ever seen.
Hi, I believe that you may not have unfolded your map completely. I think you are looking for the other side.
However, since 80% of mail is spam (according to a previous slashdot story) and 80% of spam comes from hijjacked windows computers, it stands to reason that a good number (probably a majority) of the mail in the world originates at a windows MTA.
Except for the fact that hijacked computers don't use Outlook or any other Windows MTA to send their email.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
it would require a new mail propagation protocol and a whitelist of smtp servers, but hey, it will eliminate spam from zombies:
client sends email (after authenticating) through esmtp server sends an email to mail server. mail server then connects to esmtp server and says "did you send this message $HASH". smtp2 server then says yes or no. Any email which is verified by a whitelisted esmtp server is flagged as not spam by the mail server (pop3, httpmail, whatever), all other email could be flagged as spam and delivered, but with a spam flag in the header (could not be spoofed as it is placed there by the pop3 server. This way old servers would still beable to send email (although they would be marked as spam, the spam header could be removed by the client, if it is from a trusted address or whatever), and any emails sent using the new mail propagation protocol would automatically be flagged as not spam (woo!).
only problem is, who would maintain a whitelist? i suppose governments could do this, and the pop3 server could be configured to use any/many different whitelist servers.
If the license they use is not compatable with use in an open source tool, and their system ends up taking off, then the end result is that all people using open source e-mail clients will be misidentified as "spammers" and thus unable to send e-mail to people who do participate in this system
distributing it as binary does not have the patent requirements, all an open source email client needs to do is have a plug in interface for the BINARY add ons that will support this functionality and THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN
Really well how naive is Eben Moglen? Because he is not saying
/ 02/26/1 448253
its a "legal fact" thats its incompatible with all Open Source
licenses. When he was shown the section on relicensing
he did not say "it violates the GPL" HOWEVER after getting
a copy of the whole license he has now said:
"it may prohibit use under the GPL"
I encourage pleople to read:
http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=04
This seems to be almost identical to the issue that came up with
the MS XML Schema patents and the W3C thought their license
was ok.
The IETF uses RFC3668 for patent issues and MS may well
have met all their requirements.
As far as your last point please I'm not concerned with wether
it meet your definition of OSS (Or anyone elses) I am concerned
with is it better or worse then license that have already been
accepted and are in use in software and protocols around
the world.
I am not saying I think this license is a Good Thing.
I'm not thrilled with it and if there is a solution that
is just as good but unencumbered then I think thats the right
direction.
The two of you? Huh? Are the voices in your head bothering you again maxpubic?
Perhaps it's rubbing off, mmmm?
Ah, Bashdork. Gotta love it.
Jeez, posted to MS Releases License For Sender-ID, has been moderated Flamebait (-1).
It is currently scored Flamebait (0).
------
Jeez, posted to MS Releases License For Sender-ID, has been moderated Insightful (+1).
It is currently scored Insightful (1).
------
Jeez, posted to MS Releases License For Sender-ID, has been moderated Insightful (+1).
It is currently scored Insightful (2).
------
Jeez, posted to MS Releases License For Sender-ID, has been moderated Troll (-1).
It is currently scored Insightful (1).
------
Jeez, posted to MS Releases License For Sender-ID, has been moderated Insightful (+1).
It is currently scored Insightful (2).
------
Jeez, posted to MS Releases License For Sender-ID, has been moderated Flamebait (-1).
It is currently scored Insightful (1).
------
Jeez, posted to MS Releases License For Sender-ID, has been moderated Insightful (+1).
It is currently scored Insightful (2).
------
Jeez, posted to MS Releases License For Sender-ID, has been moderated Troll (-1).
It is currently scored Insightful (1).
------
Jeez, posted to MS Releases License For Sender-ID, has been moderated Overrated (-1).
It is currently scored Flamebait (0).
------
Jeez, posted to MS Releases License For Sender-ID, has been moderated Flamebait (-1).
It is currently scored Flamebait (-1).
Much like you won't need to adhere to Microsoft's wishes, they'll ignore yours. And eventually you will end up with your end-users saying "Hey, I don't get e-mail from because we're not compatible with MS".
At that point you'll get blank stares as you tell your users that due to a moral stand against adhering to a Microsoft non-standard, they'll just have to accept not getting e-mail from those sources. That would be like one phone company refusing to accept long-distance calls from subscribers from another company. It won't go over well. Except in the case of phones, it would be illegal I suspect.
In a way, Microsoft indirectly has clout because huge amounts of companies will perform the switch without knowing or caring about everyone else and how it's not really a standard.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
But what the fuck is a "bungi"? What are you, a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle?
As far as your last point please I'm not concerned with wether it meet your definition of OSS (Or anyone elses) I am concerned with is it better or worse then license that have already been accepted and are in use in software and protocols around the world.
Well, then you are missing the point. The point is that there is lots of software distributed under OSS licenses, licenses that conform to the official OSS definition. Since Microsoft's licensing terms for this patent are incompatible with the OSS definition, that means that packages that incorporate Microsoft's patented invention cannot be distributed under an OSS license anymore.
So, that means that there are several things that can happen: (1) OSS developers change their licenses to make them compatible with Microsoft's terms, (2) OSS developers challenge or ignore the patent, (3) OSS developers don't use Microsoft's patented invention (they come up with their own system), or (4) OSS developers ignore Microsoft's sub-licensing restrictions and just redistribute the software in source form without executing license agreements.
You seem to think that (1) will happen because Microsoft's terms seem pretty benign to you. I'm telling you, hell will freeze over before people change their OSS licenses to accomodate such licenses--not because they are stubborn, but because it's impractical. (2) would be an option in this case, but it isn't worth it, since the feature that Microsoft patented isn't all that important and since there are non-patented alternatives around.
(4) is a real worry because it would give Microsoft grounds for making claims on OSS projects. But the community is mature and smart enough not to let that happen and all major OSS development portals and organizations are going to see to it that that doesn't happen with software under their control.
So, it will come down to (3): OSS developers will do their own thing and Microsoft will have yet another proprietary feature that works only among a few products in the Microsoft universe. Of course, that's nothing new.
The major effect of this is that people will take the IETF even less seriously than they already do.
Does anyone know the corresponding patent numbers held by microsoft?
Why do you think it requires such a high percentage? All it requires is that MS doesn't play nice and the others do - then you have the situation where using MS gets you access to e-mail with the whole world, (since they aren't going to cut MS out), and using open-source gets you access to a subset of the world. Even if the difference is only 20% or 30%, that's enough to matter.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
all an open source email client needs to do is have a plug in interface for the BINARY add ons that will
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
There are other licenses besides FSF. People already
appear to be saying that there are license that would be fine
Sendmail Open Source License,BSD license,IBM Common Public License amoung them.
"The major effect of this is that people will take the IETF even less seriously than they already do."
Which will still be way more seriously then they take the FSF folks.
It'd be nice if you consider the whole of what I actually wrote,
I already said that I think its likely its not the best idea
but I won't dismiss it out of hand on purely religious reasons.
I never said that they I think the terms are begin or that OSS
folks will change their license. I said:
1) An FSF lawyer has not said with certainity there is a conflict
(unlike your legal fact rhetoric) It appears they may vert
well come down on that side
2) There is more then one type of license for freely distributed
software.
3) It always makes sense to look up to see if the world is
passing you by; IE if this type of license is being accepted
by the IETF and W3C maybe things are changing and the
OSS community should be aware of that.
There are other licenses besides FSF. People already appear to be saying that there are license that would be fine Sendmail Open Source License,BSD license,IBM Common Public License amoung them.
Those licenses may be compatible with Microsoft's patent licensing requirement, in the sense that you can put those licenses on a piece of software and also impose a patent licensing requirement. But once you incorporate the patented invention into, say, a piece of BSD-licensed software, the end product is not BSD-licensed anymore, it is covered by a "BSD-license with additional restrictions".
And that's not an academic or semantic distinction: those additional restrictions seriously interfere with day-to-day open source software development.
but I won't dismiss it out of hand on purely religious reasons.
And that's your problem: you dismiss the FSF's concerns as "purely religious reasons". They aren't. The FSF and other OSS community members are concerned about the costs that such license changes impose on their projects and operations, and those costs are high.
It always makes sense to look up to see if the world is passing you by; IE if this type of license is being accepted by the IETF and W3C maybe things are changing and the OSS community should be aware of that.
The OSS community is fully aware of what is happening and that some institutions are trying to go in that direction. Whether that's a good thing for the industry is one question.
But one thing is absolutely clear: software that comes with such restrictions does not meet the definition of open source software and it means that software falling under such restrictions cannot be developed under an open source model anymore. So, if the IETF and the W3C are releasing standards with such licensing requirements, they are saying that they are not interested in open source implementations.
The problem with people like you is that you lack the courage of your own convictions: you think that OSS developers are just a bunch of religious morons that complain too much, yet you are afraid to come out and say that we don't need OSS development. You want the buzz-word value of OSS licenses while imposing non-OSS licenses on developers.
"And that's not an academic or semantic distinction: those additional restrictions seriously interfere with day-to-day open source software development."
They do interfere and I think thats a bad thing. Is it a lethal
thing, maybe I'm not done investigating yet. Some people
seem to think it might be work. It is clearly not a good
thing but perhaps it will end up acceptable.
"And that's your problem: you dismiss the FSF's concerns as "purely religious reasons"
No its not thank you very much. If it were I wouldn't be interested in what their lawyer had to say. I don't dismiss
anything out of hand. Your post was well in advance of any
comment by them.
"The problem with people like you is that you lack the courage of your own convictions: you think that OSS developers are just a bunch of religious morons that complain too much, yet you are afraid to come out and say that we don't need OSS development. You want the buzz-word value of OSS licenses while imposing non-OSS licenses on developers."
Could you try to argue the facts or at least logical inferences
that might be drawn from what I've said. Did I ever say OSS
developers should implement it, no - I've said some
might be able to under the licenses they use. I've said
given equal alternatives that are less encumbered one
should chose those alterntives.
I don't want nor can I impose anything on OSS developers.
I'm not afraid to come out and say anything I believe I just
don't happen to believe the words you are trying to
stick into my mouth.
I do believe *SOME* OSS developers are religious morons
who whine incessitantly, I also know some I like and
respect, as for the rest I can't say one way or the other.
Why do you think it requires such a high percentage? All it requires is that MS doesn't play nice and the others do - then you have the situation where using MS gets you access to e-mail with the whole world, (since they aren't going to cut MS out), and using open-source gets you access to a subset of the world. Even if the difference is only 20% or 30%, that's enough to matter.
You are missing the point: if oss mail servers are unable to implement the sender-id and microsoft servers do use it. Then you have the problem that ms server can send e-mail to everybody, but cannot receive a lot of email (no sernder-id). In this case ms servers are considered to be unreliable for receiving e-mail. Most email users don't care about sender-id of spf; they want their email to be delivered.
The 18.5 minutes of silence finally explained: Richard Nixon was reading "My Pet Goat".
Actually, he was listening to Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant"
Could you try to argue the facts or at least logical inferences that might be drawn from what I've said. Did I ever say OSS developers should implement it, no - I've said some might be able to under the licenses they use.
But that isn't true--you cannot have a piece of open source software (i.e., something that meets the definition of open source) that incorporates patented technology that requires developers to execute individual patent licensing agreements with Microsoft.
I don't want nor can I impose anything on OSS developers. I'm not afraid to come out and say anything I believe I just don't happen to believe the words you are trying to stick into my mouth.
It's clear that you feel uncomfortable with when I restate your position in the way I did. What I am saying is that I think your position amounts to that: you think OSS developers should consider incorporating such licenseable technology into their software. You just don't recognize that such a suggestion is pretty much the same as if you said "guys, why don't you consider giving up on this OSS stuff altogether and just develop proprietary software". Your intention may not be to say something so obviously controversial to OSS developers, but that's what it amounts to.
And I believe you when you say that you personally are in a position to impose anything on OSS developers (that's why I said "people like you"). But your view reflects the views that the IETF committee members have stated regarding these kind of licenses, and the IETF is indeed trying to use its clout as a standards body to change the way OSS developers develop software. But, like you, the IETF is apparently unwilling to state clearly that their position is the same as basically telling OSS developers "we don't want you to implement our standards under OSS licenses".
You're forgetting the powerful FUD factor. The misleading idea the public would get would not be "MS servers are unreliable". The idea they will get is "OSS servers are unreliable because people keep using them for spam, and that's why MS has to cut them off." It's not true, but it's the perception people would have because that's precisely what the MS software would be telling them.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. How does MS asking you to mention their patent in your source cause any problem for the GPL? The GPL is quite clear that individual users must not need to apply for a patent license; that license must be royalty-free and transferable to anyone who uses the GPL'd code. Period. Microsoft's patent license appears to be royalty-free and transferable. They want their patent license in close proximity to your software license -- that's OK by the GPL, just bundle the two text files with your source, as you today bundle the GPL text file with your source.
You can't bundle GPL with your source and distribute it, unless you are distributing under the terms of the GPL and no other restrictions are imposed.
In order to derive software from Microsoft patent, Microsfot requires you to give them reciprocal rights on certain of your patents. You can not impose such a requirement on software if you are deriving it from other copyrighted material you are using under the GPL license.
The copyright holder expressly forbids it.
The GPL says:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
The microsoft software is not transferable to all third parties with no charge under the terms of the GPL. Only to a subset of third parties, namely people who agree to abide by specific additional stipulations of the microsoft license. Consequently the GPL would would not enable them to use the software unless they agreed to the additional microsoft terms. The GPL specifically does not allow you to add additional restrictions to the use of the software. The fact that those restrictions are from microsoft is not at all relevant.
If you want to add additional restrictions you have exceeded the license granted to you by the GPL, and you must obtain permission to derive from the authors, just like you would need to obtain permission in the case of any copyrighted work.
You may not revoke from the recipients of your GPL derived work, any rights the GPL granted to you, because the GPL only gave you license to distribute if you license as a whole the entire work under the GPL. The requirements of Microsofts license do not give all the same rights as those of the GPL and thus you can't impose microsofts license onto GPL work, and then use a GPL license to justify, what would be, copyright infringment against the copyright holders of the GPL software you are deriving from.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
"But that isn't true--you cannot have a piece of open source software (i.e., something that meets the definition of open source) "
Hmm this maybe a semantic issue and as I am not up on
all the correct definitions I'll concede as stated you maybe right.
How about even with this license some people may produce
freely availalbe code that may be used folks on the Net.
"It's clear that you feel uncomfortable with when I restate your position in the way I did"
Well as it does not come close to reflecting what I feel my postions is I do have some issues with it. Particularly
calling my conviction into question and stating I believe
as OSS developers are relgious zealot whose opinions
I reject out of hand.
"You just don't recognize that such a suggestion is pretty much the same as if you said "guys, why don't you consider giving up on this OSS stuff altogether and just develop proprietary software"
Wow an excellent use of the logical fallacy of the false delimma allow me to compliment you.
The IETF also has rules/guiding principle and such, so you
are saying OSS's rules should trump those?
I'm not saying they are correct or that your principles are
any less worthy just that you entire argument could
be turned on its head and used to support an IETF postion.
Please note I have never said OSS developer should write
this software using this license just that they should examine
the whole pciture before rejecting it. Your argument
was this the licenses are complety incompatible and thats a
legal fact. Maybe you are the worlds greatest IP lawyer
I don't know but I found that claimto be an exaggeration.
I seriously doubt the IETF is trying to tell OSS developers
anything. They are trying to navigate amoung a disperate
set of vendors and interest to create an Internet that works.
In additon they have all the political BS and stupidity that
happens anytime you get a group of people together.
I am sure they are aware there is a cost to not having OSS
folks working on software that supports their protocols.
If you had left off the part about "modding people are of less value than a toilet bowl fecal matter" then I would have helped mod off the troll tag. People should not post just what they think the mods want to hear. However as a meta-moderator I do not appreciate that quip about mods, and therefore you deserve the troll tag. Wear it proudly. You earned it.