Subject: Licensing issues

From: Koen Martens <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 11:57:22 +0200

People,

I hope I'm not out of order with this post, I've been lurking on this list
for a while and now feel I have to voice my worries. I said this before
on other lists, but I think I should revoice this opinion right here.

I'm frankly quite worried about the way microsoft is involved in all
this. To be honest, if the end of your efforts are something that even
hints at stuff I have to hire an attorney for to figure out in
connection with microsoft, I will not even consider the protocol itself
for me and my customers. Mind you, I don't know the facts simply because
I'm not a lawyer. I don't have the expertise to root around in legal
documents and international law to see what microsoft claims, and what
it will mean for me. 

I hope this concern of mine is not waived by blaming it on my emotions
or anything. I'm just being practical here. I don't have the legal
expertise to figure out what microsoft has licensed and what not, and
what I can do without being afraid of the Wrath of the Giant. 

I liked good old SPF-Classic, and I will continue to support this, both
by publishing, checking & writing code. I will never ever contribute
even half a line of code on something if there is a chance that
half a line of code ends up being owned by Microsoft. 

Ok, I've spoken up. I will go back to lurking now. Thanks for your time,

Koen Martens

-- 
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, embedded systems, unix expertise, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/