hi David -- To be honest, I haven't looked at any OSP-covered specs yet.
The Sender ID situation was really quite unpleasant, and involved a lot of negotiation and lawyer work, which is never fun (no reflection on the ASF's great legal team, just a general statement of fact ;). On top of this, in terms of "real world" usage, by now, Sender ID seems to be obsolete; I haven't seen a situation where an alternative couldn't be used in its place with similar or better results. The result is that we have no drive to date to go back and investigate the implementability of an OSP-covered spec. Given the amount of legal hassle that would be involved, it'd take a _very_ good reason to do so. For what it's worth -- I, alone, definitely couldn't give an indication as to whether we believe the OSP is sufficient to make a spec now implementable by an ASF project. That's a question for the legal team, imo. Sorry ;) --j. David Fisher writes: > Hi - > I'm involved in the Apache POI project and we have quite an active > discussion going on that includes discussion about Microsoft's Open Source > Promise (OSP) [1] and whether that is sufficient license protection for > the project's users. During the discussion we were pointed at the ASF > Position Regarding Sender ID [2] which was written by the ASF, Apache > SpamAssassin PMC and Apache JAMES PMC. > I couldn't help noticing that Microsoft had made the OSP to the SenderID > RFC's. Does the project feel that the OSP does anything to eliminate the > concerns expressed in the position statement? > The OSP makes me think so, but I think you are the definitive audience to > ask. (I'm asking both projects) > [1] http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx > [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/docs/sender-id-position.html > Regards, > Dave Fisher
