Subject: RE: Sendmail releases open source Sender ID milter for testing

From: "Harry Katz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:42:51 -0700

On Wednesday, September 01, 2004 2:49 PM, [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 09:55:52 -0700, Harry Katz 
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> > Second as per the terms of the license itself, End Users who are 
> > recipients of a licensed implementation of Sender ID and
distributors 
> > who are redistributing a branded licensed implementation do not need

> > to separately sign this License Agreement.
> 
> I understand your the point about End Users, but could you 
> clarify how the license exempts distributors?  Specifically, 
> my concern is that while section 2.1 allows indirect 
> distribution of object code, section 2.2, which applies to 
> source code, does not.

Section 2.2 references 2.1 in a way that makes it permissible to
"indirectly" distribute the source code versions of the Licensed
implementations too.  In other words, if you're redistributing a
licensed branded implementation - either source or binary - you don't
need to execute the license agreement.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 21:59:24 -0400

> need to execute the license agreement.

Sorry, can you explain in more detail?  I'd like to belive this is the
case, but I'm just not seeing that in the text of the agreement.  2.2
gives me a "license to distribute or otherwise disclose source code
copies of such Licensed Implementation licensed in Section 2.1..."  So
it sounds like the source code has to correspond to a binary licensed
in 2.1, but I don't see how the reference to 2.1 affects the
distribution of source code.  As I read that sentence, the only
options for source code are to "distribute" or "otherwise disclose". 
Does having a third party like sourceforge distribute your source code
count as "otherwise disclosing" the source code?  Is it really the
case that sourceforge wouldn't need their own license?  Is one of the
lawyers on the list willing to vouch for this interpretation?

David

David

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 22:07:44 -0500

>> need to execute the license agreement.

Harry:

Is this your opinion, or Microsoft's lawyer's opinion?

> Sorry, can you explain in more detail?

I would like more details also.

> [...] I'm just not seeing that in the text of the agreement.
> [explanation deleted]

Your explanation complete agrees with what I understand the license to
say.

> lawyers on the list willing to vouch for this interpretation?

Well, I asked a lawyer about this very subject and got an informal
opinion that pretty much agrees with your understanding and conflicts
with Harry's.

Basically, the *only* source code distributions that are allowed under
the SenderID license are those that corrispond with object code
implementations.  Source code in the form of a patch is not allowed
because it won't compile.  Any redistribution from a third party like
sourceforge requires a license.  Anyone who modifies even a single
#define in the source code so that the resulting object code is
different needs to get a license.

Now, my paraphrasing of what the lawyer said may well have mangled a
few things.  I won't repost private email, so I would appreciate any
lawyer posting answers to David's questions directly to the list.  MS
lawyers would be best.

-wayne