[82368] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Yahoo and Cisco to submit e-mail ID spec to IETF
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Baldwin)
Wed Jul 13 09:29:06 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0507121303470.17513@sokol.elan.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: James Baldwin <jbaldwin@antinode.net>
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 09:28:35 -0400
To: william (at) elan.net <william@elan.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:09 PM, william(at)elan.net wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
>
>
>>> "Roaylty-free" does not mean it can be used by everyone.
>>>
>>
>> it would probably help to debate the licensing details when folks
>> have
>> looked at the specific language of the licensing agreement(s).
>>
>
> Not being lawyer myself, it would probably help to know opinion of
> lawyer well familiar with GNU and other opensource licenses.
>
> However statement that roaylty free in no way implies that license
> is compatible with requirements of open-source is absolutly correct.
>
http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/license/patentlicense1-1.html
IANAL.
With regards to Yahoo!, for all intents and purposes it appears to be
a modified BSD license with regards to usability. There are some
added provisions regarding IP claims against Yahoo! but if that's the
only gotcha, I'm more than pleased. It doesn't appear to have any
provision which would make it OSL incompatible. Once again, IANAL but
I know one on TV.
This is the patent license written for DomainKeys referenced in the
DKIM draft, if anyone knows of a more appropriate license to apply,
let me know.
