Subject: RE: Sender-ID and free software

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 06:31:19 -0700

> What I've seen at postings like
> http://www.imc.org/ietf-mxcomp/mail-archive/msg02079.html is a recall
> of the old IETF legend that people suddenly forget the company they
> work for when they post on an IETF mailing list. So, telling you "You
> say this because you work for evil Verisign and therefore we should
> not listen to you" is unacceptable according to the above statement.

It is a fiction with an important purpose. Without it I would have
to get every post OK'd by my management.

I am a press spokesperson for VeriSign, without the fiction I would have
to worry about each post being reported in the Press as an official
VeriSign position and clear each one through our PR office.

Also many of the suggestions I make have absolutely nothing to do with
the interests of VeriSign. If someone proposes a problem that should be
addressed I may suggest a solution even though there is no VeriSign
interest at stake. I may even be suggesting something that might not 
be in the direct interests of VeriSign as a means of arriving at a 
better overall spec. So to call them a VeriSign position would be
innaccurate.

> But is does not and should not prevent people from discussing the
> activities or the statements of Microsoft, Cisco, Verisign or AFNIC,
> the organizations, at least when it has a direct consequence on a
> current IETF activity.

That is something different, that is called decorum. Accusing people
of acting in bad faith is not polite.

You do not have any idea who is acting in bad faith here. Accusing
people of being dishonest because of who they work for is not 
acceptable. 

>If you drag the discussion on this ground, I would say that I'm
>skeptical: Microsoft seems to be very eager to have an official IETF
>endorsment for Sender-ID. See, for instance,
>http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/jun04/06-24SIDSpecIETFPR.asp.

Don't confuse being keen to have an endorsement by a standards body
with being keen to get an endorsement by the IETF in particular. 

>Using RFC 3683 to stop someone to express unpopular views or to raise
>annoying issues is a bad move, IMHO. I specially wonder what rule
>could be applied to rms' posting. The only one I see is
>"unprofessional commentary" which is never defined.

Making accusations of bad faith is considered unprofessional. As is 
raising an issue repeatedly when it is not possible to deal with it.

Microsoft has been told that they need to adjust the license terms if
the technology is to stay in. The chairs have given a specific date
for providing the statement from the lawyers. Ergo there is nothing
to be done until either we hear from the lawyers or the deadline
expires. There seems to already be consensus that the license terms are 
not acceptable as is.

---

From: Richard Stallman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 12:01:49 -0400

I am not sure who that was meant to refer to, but I don't believe I
have accused anyone of being dishonest.  Microsoft's internal
documents (the Halloween documents) said years ago that they would try
to use patents to hold back their free software competition.  If I
understand correctly, that's precisely what they have proposed to do
here.  (If I am factually mistaken about part of this, please show
me.)

I made a small surmise that Gates had planned to put that general
approach into effect on the spam issue.  I acknowledge I have no proof
of that; if you prefer, we can suppose that Microsoft stumbled blindly
across the opportunity.  Either way, the danger is the same.

A previous message on this list alluded to the idea of linking free
programs with a non-free library that would carry out Microsoft's
sender-id proposal.  This would not solve the problem of exclusion of
free operating systems, because this is a non-free solution.  Free
operating systems cannot come with, or recommend the user install,
such a library.  (Such linking would also violate the GNU GPL if done
with a GPL-covered mailer.)  Freedom-lovers, caught between the
Microsoft license and the specification, would have to try to break
out in whichever direction offered the best chance of escaping with
freedom intact.

However, since Microsoft's aim (as stated in those documents) is to
hold back the competition from "Linux" rather than to attack freedom
as such, this loophole could make the plan ineffective for Microsoft.
That argument may carry weight for convincing Microsoft it is not
worth while to insist on that license.