Fwd: ASF Position Regarding Sender ID and Microsoft OSP

[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
>>
>