Subject: The licensing issue

From: Mark Lentczner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:21:56 -0700

All -

Regarding the issues of licensing and intellectual property:

1) It has been my understanding that any technology that Microsoft has 
claims to would be made available with zero royalty licensing terms 
that are compatible with open source development and distribution 
including GNU licenses and OSF approved licenses.  If this is the case 
and the license bears it out, then I have no objections to such an 
arrangement.  If this is not the case, I am confident Microsoft will 
clarify their intentions.

2) Since the IPR disclosure filed by Microsoft for the Caller-ID draft 
doesn't indicate what portion of the draft is covered (section V(C) is 
blank), and since only parts of that draft have been incorporated into 
the marid-core draft, I would like to ask that Microsoft clarify which 
portions of the marid-core they have patents pending for.

	- Mark

Mark Lentczner
http://www.ozonehouse.com/mark/
[email-masked]

---

From: Greg Connor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT)

> clarify their intentions.

For the definition of "compatible" here, I think software vendors might be 
concerned as to whether the Royalty-Free license is also "sub-licenseable".  
That is, does the MTA vendor need to agree to the license, or are they 
required to show an MS-written license to the user and require THEM to agree 
too?

My opinion is that patented property or otherwise-controlled-IPR has no place 
in developing "standards".  But, since I'm not an MTA vendor, it doesn't 
impact me directly.  I would probably defer to Rand or Hector or someone who 
actually distributes software.

Let's also be aware that the Unix-geek community already has a healthy 
skepticism of Microsoft, so it would be in MARID's best interest to make sure 
that there are 1. no legal roadblocks to wide implementation, and 2. not even 
the *appearance* of any kind of encumbrance or controls.  I would encourage 
Harry and other MS folks to be Very Proactive to combat perceived barriers as 
well as real ones.  For example, if the Royalty Free license provides all the 
same rights as the GPL, using the actual GPL will create goodwill and harmony, 
whereas using some other license MS makes up might breed skepticism.

gregc

--
Greg Connor
[email-masked]

Everyone says that having power is a great responsibility.  This is a lot
of bunk.  Responsibility is when someone can blame you if something goes
wrong.  When you have power you are surrounded by people whose job it is
to take the blame for your mistakes.  If they're smart, that is. 
                -- Cerebus, "On Governing"

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:04:13 -0700 (PDT)

I've kind of compromise idea for the "licensing issue". While we wait for 
Microsoft to respond on what exactly does their patent cover, I've 
strong feeling that the only thing it might potentially cover is algorithm
to find which is the address to use for PRA from other mail headers. But 
we also have draft that defines SUBMITTER for email envelope parameter.

So my proposal is to rewrite some core documents and separate them as follows:
1. Core document that defines what MARID is and says that when "PRA" 
address is to be used, it is taken from SUBMITTER parameter Mail From. If 
abcent "other" algorithms maybe used to find what submitter is. This 
document should be free from any patent issues.
2. Document that defines SUBMITTER extension to Mail-From. Same as now and 
it also should be free from patent issues. I
3. Document that defines "caller id" algorithm for determining PRA address 
if SUBMITTER was not present  This may have patent issues.

Now as far as last document we can say that SMTP vendors are not required 
to implement it for MARID and if they did not they may use other PRA 
determinining algorithms or may simply not check PRA is submitter is not 
present. Additionally as mentioned we  we can work futher to come up with 
"good enough" altorithm for determining PRA that is not covered by any 
patents. And even if we don't come up with such algorithm, the patent 
issue with current algorithm would be interim anyway until MTA are 
upgraded to use SUBMITTER and as such it does not cover MARID work long 
term and the core remains patent free. 

I do realize that separating PRA algorithm into completely separate 
document and making sure that its the only one that has patent claims
means the current drafts will all have to be rewritten and this means
additionally delays, but this small delay is worth it.

-- 
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: Roy Badami <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 03:22:22 +0100

>>>>> "william(at)elan" == william(at)elan net <[email-masked]> writes:

    william(at)elan> I've kind of compromise idea for the "licensing
    william(at)elan> issue". While we wait for Microsoft to respond on
    william(at)elan> what exactly does their patent cover, I've strong
    william(at)elan> feeling that the only thing it might potentially
    william(at)elan> cover is algorithm to find which is the address
    william(at)elan> to use for PRA from other mail headers.

I really hope that's not the case.  The algorithm described in the
original Microsoft Caller ID proposal is exactly the algorithm that I
(and I presume everyone else who's read the RFCs) has always mentally
applied when reading the message headers.

It's an inevitable consequence of the way those fields are defined in
(2)822.

     -roy

---

From: "william(at)elan.net" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:49:37 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Roy Badami wrote:

> I really hope that's not the case. 

Lets wait until Microsoft comes up with explanation about patent claims, 
but I really don't see that there is anything else left from callerid 
that we're still using as part of MARID.

> The algorithm described in the

Mentally is one thing and documented as far as prior use is another.
If you can find cases of documented prior use of such algorithm before 
publication of Caller-ID paper, that would basicly nullify Microsoft 
patent as far it applies to MARID and it'll not be an issue any more.
At the same time, I'm not totally certain such thing as determining PRA
can be easily covered by patent at all - it all depends how they wrote the 
patent but it maybe well be easy to dispute if its too broad and if its 
very narrow coming up with similar algorithm with one of the headers 
dropped (forwarded from for example) that would not be covered by patent 
should not be hard.

---
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:24:15 -0700 (PDT)

> Lets wait until Microsoft comes up with explanation about patent claims, 

I agree with this sentiment.  Unless and until we collectively know what
(if any) IP is claimed, and under what circumstances, much of this
discussion is metaphysical WRT the drafts.  I also agree with another
poster who, IIRC, cautioned that 48 hours response time for answering
a request is insufficient time for an organization of any size to
respond.  While I appreciate that many folks may be able to respond
more quickly, and may also be devoting most of their attention to this
WG, organizations of sufficient size have many issues competing for
attention, regulations and legal requirements to meet, due diligence,
and so forth.

I understand that some WG members wish to express their support or
lack thereof for various licensing regimes. Perhaps the chair(s)
could provide some guidance to that discussion vis a vis the drafts.

It might also be helpful if we all assumed that we are all working in good
faith.  

Perhaps an indication from MS regarding when the WG might expect a response
would be appreciated by all.

--
     Bryce Ryan    mxcomp @ brycer.com