On Sunday 05 September 2004 11:15, you wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-09-04 at 21:41, Alan Dayley wrote:
> > I am also surprised at the lack of discussion of some things that are
> > very important to the Linux/FS/OSS community. Not that I am complaining
> > about the content of this list! It is the most valuable email list
> > subscription I have.
> >
Normally I would've jumped right in on this. But at the time Alan posted it
I was feeling pretty cynical. My two impressions were:
1. The law sounds so far-ranging I doubt that if the makers of electronic
equipment would let it go through because it would criminalize the production
of almost every kind of recording device. :-)
2. If the bill is amended to be "reasonable" - not in the sense that you and
I would think so, but in the sense that it wouldn't bankrupt electronics
companies - then it will pass, because what Disney wants, Disney gets. :-(
3. Don't know anything about SPF. I just checked out News Forge and saw the
article from Debian: are you referring to the so-called Microsoft
Royalty-Free Sender ID Patent License Agreement?
Vaughn
> > Maybe many already get their fill of some issues from over-saturation
> > (SCO anyone?) or don't see this list as a good place to discuss
> > "politics." For example, I have posted a few times since the end of July
> > regarding the "Inducement Act" introduced in the Senate. There have been
> > no replies. While that is fine, it has surprised me.
> >
> > On the topic at hand, SPF and MS patents, this link was on News Forge
> > today and I think shows great progress at squashing the current proposal
> > because the MS patent license is not "open" enough.
> >
> > http://www.moongroup.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=
> >2
> >
> > These updates, combined with rejection of the current proposal by the
> > Apache Software Foundation
> > (http://apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html), there
> > appears to be a growing wave against the proposal as it currently exists.
> > I am not sure what Sendmail will do now that they have implemented a
> > test if the technology but others in the FS/OSS community are now
> > rejecting it.
> >
> > We, as a LUG, do need to watch these things that will directly effect our
> > freedom to use the technology we enjoy now, and in the future.
>
> ----
> Thanks for the links.
>
> I could see that SPF looked interesting at first glance and then from
> the first grains of discussion that I came across, I found out about
> Microsoft's intellectual property filings on the technology.
>
> Internet email protocols cannot be hostage to Microsoft's intellectual
> property patent portfolio period (apologies for the alliteration)
>
> There is an interesting link...
> http://www.ciphertrust.com/spf_stats
>
> which suggests that it doesn't stop anything since spammers can and will
> register their records - a dismal failure of technology to do anything
> but deliver power to Microsoft.
>
> Craig
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)