Subject: RE: The SSL license offer.

From: "Ryan Malayter" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:27:04 -0500

[Hallam-Baker, Phillip]
>The patent is held by Netscape (AOL) and covers transport layer 
>security. The terms are considerably more vague than in the SenderID
>case. Netscape does not promise to offer a sublicensable patent or
>even to offer reasonable or non discriminatory terms.

Very interesting. If OpenSSL can be included in Linux distributions, why
can't SenderID? 

The SSL license would seem to have tproblems with the GPL similar to
those that the SenderID license does.

--
Ryan

---

From: "Guillaume Filion" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:26:54 -0400

> those that the SenderID license does.

I may be talking throught my hat, but reading the SSL patent license, I see
no restriction on redistribution.

The Sender-ID license allows (re)distribution only for those who sign the
license and fax it to them. In my understanding, this is the main
incompatibility with the GPL.

Here's the part of the SSL License I'm refering to:
     If you don't have an SSL Ref license, you may have a royalty free
license to
     build implementations covered by the SSL Patent Claims or the IETF TLS
     specification provided that you do not to assert any patent rights
against
     Netscape or other companies for the implementation of SSL or the IETF
TLS
     recommendation.

Best,
GFK's
-- 
Guillaume Filion, ing. jr
Logidac Tech., Beaumont, Québec, Canada - http://logidac.com/
PGP Key and more: http://guillaume.filion.org/

---

From: wayne <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 17:02:21 -0500

>>even to offer reasonable or non discriminatory terms.

The terms "reasonable" and "non descriminatory" of RAND are almost
meaningless.  

> those that the SenderID license does.

The problem isn't the patents, the problem is the license.  It is the
terms of the licenses that make the SenderID patent license
incompatible with the GPL and causes folks like sourceforge need a
license in order to redistribute the senderid-milter.

The OpenSSL TLS patent and license dates 1996 or 1997.  It is hard to
even dig up information to refresh my memory about this issue.

I think this is all a red herring though.  The question before this
working group is not what has been done in the past, but whether the
costs associated with the SenderID license are more than offset by the
benefits of using the patented PRA algorithm when compared with other
proposals that are not encumbered.  Since I believe that there are
unencumbered alternatives to the PRA algorithm that are *better*, the
cost of the license would have to be negative.

-wayne

---

From: "David H. Lynch Jr." <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 05:45:08 -0700

>>those that the SenderID license does.
    The SSL license probably is incompatible with the GPL. But that does 
not make it incompatible with all FOSS licenses.
Also every piece of software included in a Linux distribution does not 
meet the Free Software Foundations criteria, that does not
prevent it from being included. Some distributions such as Debian 
distinguish between free and non-free  - incompatible license terms.
The OpenSSL license would probably qualify it as non-free but 
redistributable. The Microsoft License would prevent redistribution.

    The GPL is the most popular OpenSource License. However it is not 
the only one.

    Finally, we - not even the lawyers, do not get to decide whether the 
Microsoft license is incompatible with whatever License a particular 
developer is using
That developer does, or the distributor. Basically the people who are 
taking the risk by developing and distributing software  get to decide 
based hopefully on the advice
  they receive from THEIR lawyers, whether they have a problem. If 
Phillip Hazel, or the developers of Courier, ... believe they have a 
problem, you can try to persuade them otherwise
but you can not just tell them that they are wrong.