> You understand this stuff far better than I. I'm not even sure of what it > might mean to license a /patent/ under the GPL (perhaps it means that any > implementation released under the GPL is automatically licensed?)
There's no such thing as a GPL patent license. The FSF has a longstanding anti-patent policy, after all. >> What would be the advantage >> to anyone of demanding license changes for obsolete code? > > Yes, http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/license/patentlicense1-2.html looks > obsolete, because its header title doesn't match the one in the body, and > because its authoritative link doesn't work. However, the patent itself > doesn't seem obsolete to me. The IPR refers to both the GPL and the patent license. The patent license is fine, the typo in the header and the dead link have been there for four years and aren't important, since this is a document for lawyers to read, not code. Really, the GPL only refers to the Sourceforge code, and nobody cares about that. We should advance DKIM to draft standard now. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
