Hi Guys,
Thanks for the feedback. Sam Ruby is already talking to legal about
OSP and POI.
I'll report back to this list if you would like to know how that goes.
The SpamAssassin project seems to have little interest in SenderID, I
don't think they care anymore.
Regards,
Dave
On Apr 19, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Danny Angus wrote:
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
