james-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Danny Angus" <da...@apache.org>
Subject Re: ASF Position Regarding Sender ID and Microsoft OSP
Date Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:36:14 GMT
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
<robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 4:39 AM, David Fisher <dfisher@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
>

Mime
View raw message