Should we disable/remove Razor?

[Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>]

Duncan pointed this out to me on IRC.:

  http://razor.sourceforge.net/docs/doc.php?type=text&name=SERVICE_POLICY

  Cloudmark SpamNet Service Policy

  V1.0
  Aug 1, 2003

  SpamNet Service and Razor-Agents 

  While Razor-Agents are distributed under the Artistic License and will
  stay that way, the Cloudmark SpamNet service, a particular implementation
  of a Razor-compliant back-end, is a commercial operation with maintenance
  and support costs, and is no longer available for unlimited free use,
  effective immediately.

  Use of the SpamNet service by Razor-agent-enabled software will remain
  free for personal use, subject to capacity constraints that Cloudmark may
  enforce against intensive users of the service as it sees fit.

  Distribution or use of the system in commercial embedded software
  solutions is not free. All such access must be licensed by Cloudmark.
  Organizations interested in working with Razor or with Cloudmark's
  next-generation SpamNet client technologies should contact Cloudmark at
  partners@cloudmark.com

This policy appears to conflict with our policy regarding service costs.
I'm not sure why we missed it, but this is why SpamCop was originally
disabled by default (until they changed the "you should donate" policy).

I think we should consider disabling or removing Razor from core.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/

Re: Should we disable/remove Razor?

[Shelby Moore <co...@earthlink.net>]

Daniel Quinlan wrote:
[snip]
>...SVN commit to follow.

SVN means?  Is that a veto (-1) vote commit?

Re: Should we disable/remove Razor?

[Daniel Quinlan <qu...@pathname.com>]

Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net> writes:

> We didn't miss it.  The day it came out, we had a thread on dev about it:
> 
> Subject: the razor usage license has changed
> 
> You even responded using the same SpamCop example. ;)

Hmmm... at least I'm consistent.  So, we didn't miss it, but it does
seem like we let it slide or slip off our radar.  I completely forgot
about it myself.  SVN commit to follow.

Daniel

-- 
Daniel Quinlan
http://www.pathname.com/~quinlan/

Re: Should we disable/remove Razor?

[Theo Van Dinter <fe...@kluge.net>]

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:50:17PM -0800, Dan Quinlan wrote:
>   http://razor.sourceforge.net/docs/doc.php?type=text&name=SERVICE_POLICY
> 
> This policy appears to conflict with our policy regarding service costs.
> I'm not sure why we missed it, but this is why SpamCop was originally
> disabled by default (until they changed the "you should donate" policy).
> 
> I think we should consider disabling or removing Razor from core.

We didn't miss it.  The day it came out, we had a thread on dev about it:

Subject: the razor usage license has changed

You even responded using the same SpamCop example. ;)

I have a copy of the thread if you're interested, but in short the
change on their part was so that people who include access to Razor
as a commercial product/service would have to pay.  Everyone else is
considered under "personal use".

I also have a thread saved from razor-users about the change.  From Vipul
himself:

"Yes. The restrictions only apply to those who are selling commercial
systems that integrate Razor agents."

-- 
Randomly Generated Tagline:
   Professor: Superstitious robot mumbo jumbo.   
    Old robot: Mumbo, perhaps, jumbo, perhaps not.

Re: Should we disable/remove Razor?

[Shelby Moore <co...@earthlink.net>]

Daniel Quinlan wrote:

[snip]

>This policy appears to conflict with our policy regarding service costs.
>I'm not sure why we missed it, but this is why SpamCop was originally
>disabled by default (until they changed the "you should donate" policy).
>
>I think we should consider disabling or removing Razor from core.

I think you need to be consistent in your policies, based on the language in your licenses, not on some interpretations which may or may not be correct.

If a service is charging for use, and that is against your license, then I think it MUST be a plugin.  Else you will run into perceptions of impartiality.

I do not care if Razor is enabled in main distribution.  It is of no effect on us.  But my point is purely a matter of how you will be perceived and how that translates to investment in SpamAssassin by corporations.

Please make an official statement on what exactly is the "level playing field" (sandbox) we must all play in.


Theo Van Dinter wrote:
>I have a copy of the thread if you're interested, but in short the
>change on their part was so that people who include access to Razor
>as a commercial product/service would have to pay.  Everyone else is
>considered under "personal use".

The exact language of the license is different from your interpretation:

"...commercial embedded software solutions..."

That could affect any one who uses SpamAssassin in a commercial way.