Subject: Re: In favour of Sender ID (was: DEPLOY: SPF/Sender ID support in Courier.)

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 00:12:45 -0400 (EDT)

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Roy Badami wrote:

> >>>>> "Dean" == Dean Anderson <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>     Dean> This is completely wrong.  You are confusing a license with
>     Dean> a contract.  Patent laws in various countries prohibit use
>     Dean> of patented technology and intentional violations have
>     Dean> severe penalties, where unintentional violations have
>     Dean> economic penalties and injunction. 
> 
> I think you're missing my point.  I fully realize that distributing
> software may violate patent law.
> 
> However a lot of discussion here has focussed on whether the existence
> of the Sender ID license causes distribution of software to be
> contrary to the GPL.

Ahh. Yes, I missed that.  I think the GPL specifically answers this
question:

http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html

 "Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents.
  We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
  individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
  proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must
  be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."

If you've written code, released it under the GPL, and it needs to be free
without encumbrances.  You can't secretly add encumbrances to it.  That
would be dishonest.

> My point is: clearly, if you aren't a party to the patent license then
> its wording can't have any effect on you.  Either the GPL allows you
> to distribute software that might have claims on it or it doesn't.

I certainly can have effect on you. I thought I was clear: A patent has
effect on you regardless of whether you are a party to a license.  It
effects _everyone_ in the realm of the patent jurisdiction for 21 years.

> Distributing software may (obviously) be unlawful under patent law,
> but the wording of a license you haven't agreed to isn't going to
> affect your rights under the GPL.

I think you missed the point: You don't "agree" to a patent license any
more than you agree to abide by the speed limit.  You either accept the
terms of a license or you don't use the patented technology.  Unlicensed
use of patented technology may result in injuctions, damages, back
royalties, and attorneys fees.

You keep trying to put things in terms of contracts: If you don't agree to
a contract, you aren't bound by it. By contrast, patents are mandates. You
must comply with patent law whether you agree or not. Your choice is to
either obtain a license or not use the patented technology.  This is, of
course, why software patents are so oppressive.

		--Dean