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
First Trolling Post.
How long will it be before you have to have a signed agreement with Microsoft to send an email?
That's bullshit.
I'm smart and posted first!!
Why not use something like gnupg to sign email in order to prove the identity of the sender?
bummer
FP
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?
First MS decides to take on Linux and now they want to stomp out spam. Why do they have such a problem with meat-like products in a can?
Three drops of blood
Other fluids (defined in separate document)
Provide access for nanoprobes (Resistance is futile, after all.)
I'm in!
First I Did Coke With Quincy Carter post!
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...
Compatability with the Open Source Definition, the Free Software Definition, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and the GPL/LGPL licenses is already in question.
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?
If you guys spent less time arguing who has the better license or "teh freest stuff" or fighting in GNOME vs. KDE and is it GNU/Linux or GNU/Not flamewars and more time building software that is easy to use and doesn't require an IQ of 160 to configure (end user testing would also be good) you'd be giving Microsoft a run for their money by now.
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.
This is to inform you of the really quite shocking actions being
perpetuated by the UK cinema chain Odeon against a disabled Scottish
boy Matthew Somerville.
9 year old Matthew suffers from the rare, medically unknown condition
of "Shatner's Palsy" which corrodes un-oxygenated body tissue. Doctors
work hard on a cure, but admit to the possibility of a fatal remission
within 70 years. Despite this, Matthew continues to brighten the lives
of everyone he meets.
Incredibly, despite having weak arms, he is still able to operate a
computer using a deviously constructed input device, consisting of a
covered spherical ball and a pair of single-pole-single-throw latches.
Resting his scrawny hand on the tool, any small movements are converted
to gigabyte digital input signals.
The disabled boy constructed a special film portal for the disabled.
It was very popular, receiving over 20 "hits" a month. Webmaster
experts based at Durham University examined his JavaScript code using
remote debugging techniques and proclaimed it "fully polymorphic,
slightly recursive and 100% XML ready".
Despite this, Odeon cinemas have ordered him to "cease and desist"
using the recently enacted European Millennium Copyright Act (EMCA) to
copyright the notion of "film discussion" by a person and/or persons
"without full limb mobility". They have demanded his website is put in
the Windows XP recycle bin, and insisted "it should then be emptied".
This cannot be allowed to happen. The disabled should have almost as
many rights as normal people, at least with regard to discussing films.
Luckily for us, people power works, and that's where you come in.
How can you help disabled boy Matthew Somerville?
a) Email Odeon customer support (info@odeonuk.com) and tell them you are
boycotting their chain (Rocky 6 excepted) while they continue
their legal actions against disabled boys.
b) Email Odeon UK chairman Luke Vetere (lvetere@odeonuk.com) and insist
that the website be retrieved from the recycle bin, wiped clean, and
uploaded back onto the UK internet web system using FTP packet protocols.
c) Email and post this message to everybody you know (several times), and
on every "blog" site you can find.
In addition, why not join Matthew in his separate quest to enter the
"Guinness Book of Records" with the record of "largest collection of
used cinema ticket stubs". Matthew is aiming for over a thousand.
Send them, perhaps with a letter of encouragement to
Matthew Somerville
Guinness Record Attempt
109 Eastern Drive
Edinburgh
EH7 1DA
Remember, only by working together can we can beat an evil law, and
brighten the failing heart of a young disabled angel.
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?
Pathetic...
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.
...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.
----
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
I remember when transparent terminals came out in E ( called ETerms ). They were the coolest thing i'd ever seen.
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
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?
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?
Never agree to any software license that isn't a "GPL-type" of license.
Screw Bill and Co. I will never stop using my Mandrakelinux the way I do and for how I use it. If that means I have to do it illegally, then, so be it. No one, and I do mean NO ONE will stop me from using my Mandrakelinux distro! I have never broken a law in my life. However, I am willing to break every single friggin' law known to man rather than be forced to stop using my Mandrakelinux. There isn't enough treasure in this universe to buy me out either.
Microsoft can just kiss my big white hairy pimply ass!
This is just a note from an extremely loyal GNU/Linux follower to let everyone know how some of us feel, regardless of what the future holds for Microsoft or GNU/Linux.
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.
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.
The people who do the modding of these comments always seem to mod mine down, even though tey're relevant.
So, just to let them know, they're wasting their time modding my comments down because I don't really give a flying rat's ass what they think of my comments. The modding people are of less value than a toilet bowl fecal matter.
As long as I can read my comments, that is all that matters.
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.
Even if MS was to give away something, the slashdot hate-trolls would still cough up FUD and propaganda based on their own ignorence and fear of what they do not understand (seems they can't RTFM when it comes to MS, they only do that for linux...)
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!
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.
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"
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.
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?
Does anyone know the corresponding patent numbers held by microsoft?
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"
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.