I read through some of these postings at rhyolite.com. It sounds to me like DCC should be off in SA by default going forward, or possibly completely removed from SA future versions so users don't accidentally get in a license/legal dispute without their knowledge.
For instance...Jump two years into the future you receive a registered mail..."Dear Mr. SA user. Our logs show that you used DCC for 12 months 2 years ago so you now owe rhyolite or whoever $10,000. Have a nice day." Also, if someone were to create a 'Commtouch owned IP address RBL', I would surely install it on my gateway today. :-) -----Original Message----- From: Bob Proulx [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 1:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: DCC License Change Matt Kettler wrote: > Justin Mason wrote: > >Well, I guess this gives us a good reason to finally get around to > >writing our own hashing subsystem... > > Unfortunately that might not be a workable option Justin. The reason DCC > is changing license is because it's infringing on a broad patent of > using hashes to automatically detect spam based on volume of duplicates. > It's not because the author really wants to change the license, it's > ultimately because he HAS to change the license. > > http://www.rhyolite.com/pipermail/dcc/2004/002468.html > > The license change is a part of an agreement with the patent owner, so > any similar system implemented by SA would end up going the same path as > DCC. > > You might be able to do a razor-ish system of listing based on reports, > but you might find this patent still applies, or some other patent applies. > > Run it through ASF legal, and proceed accordingly. I am reading the archive and I can't agree completely with that statement. Although I agree the patent is involved. http://www.rhyolite.com/pipermail/dcc/2005/002570.html I see several important points there. 1. "I have some other ideas, but they depend on things that cost money like a feed of the (formerly free) SBL from Spamhaus." 2. "The new ideas can't be free because they are likely to cost money in fees to third parties." 3. "The agreement includes a promise to me to not sue or try to collect royalties Patent 6,330,590 from organizations covered by the new, restricted license." I agree that he sounds like he does not want the license change and feels forced into it. It could not have been an easy decision for him. But previously he stated that it was not infringing. http://www.rhyolite.com/pipermail/dcc/2004/002465.html There he states that he does not believe DCC to be infringing on the patent. Note however that the date of the message is well before the license change. So it is possible he was convinced otherwise. It is also possible that the his plans included code that would in the future would need a license. I am just speculating. In any case it is a shame to see things take this turn of direction. DCC will be missed. Bob
