You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@james.apache.org by David Fisher <df...@jmlafferty.com> on 2008/04/18 05:39:07 UTC
ASF Position Regarding Sender ID and Microsoft OSP
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
Fwd: ASF Position Regarding Sender ID and Microsoft OSP
Posted by David Fisher <df...@jmlafferty.com>.
Hi Guys,
Here's what Apache JAMES had to say.
Basically interested, but not in a big way. They also suggested going
to legal which is what we are doing.
I'll report back if anything more is said by people in either project.
I'll also let them know what we find out.
Regards,
Dave
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "Danny Angus" <da...@apache.org>
> Date: April 19, 2008 11:36:14 AM CDT
> To: "James PMC General List" <ge...@james.apache.org>, dfisher@jmlafferty.com
> Subject: Re: ASF Position Regarding Sender ID and Microsoft OSP
> Reply-To: general@james.apache.org
>
> 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
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:39 AM, David Fisher
>> <df...@jmlafferty.com> 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
>>
>
Re: ASF Position Regarding Sender ID and Microsoft OSP
Posted by David Fisher <df...@jmlafferty.com>.
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
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:39 AM, David Fisher
>> <df...@jmlafferty.com> 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
>>
>
Re: ASF Position Regarding Sender ID and Microsoft OSP
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
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
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:39 AM, David Fisher <df...@jmlafferty.com> 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
>
Re: ASF Position Regarding Sender ID and Microsoft OSP
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:39 AM, David Fisher <df...@jmlafferty.com> 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