FYI it was the spam assassin project that guided the ASF's response. d.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:39 AM, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi - > > hi david > > > > 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. > > micrsoft has come a long way since 2004 > > > > 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? > > i haven't studied it in detail but at first glance it looks good > > > > The OSP makes me think so, but I think you are the definitive audience to > > ask. (I'm asking both projects) > > i'm not sure i'd describe us as the definitive: legal-discuss is the > best forum for legal questions and that's where this one need to be > moved. if it's time for apache to change it's position WRT sender ID > we need to talk about it there. > > - robert >
