apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Roy T. Fielding" <field...@gbiv.com>
Subject Re: MD4/MD5 implementation is non-free
Date Tue, 17 Oct 2006 04:59:16 GMT
On Oct 16, 2006, at 9:02 PM, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
> "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote on 10/16/2006 03:44:20 PM:
>> On Oct 16, 2006, at 3:38 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
>>> An argument has been made that the third-party MD4/MD5 code in APR
>>> (specifically, APR-util) is licensed such that it is not
>>> permissible to
>>> distribute modified works.
>> AIUI, copyright law has separate restrictions on "to make ...
>> derivative works" from the restrictions on reproducing works, and
>> thus the text is merely reflecting each of the permissions needed
>> in turn.  In other words, if you have a license to copy and a license
>> to make derivative works, then you have a license to redistribute
>> the derivative works as well, since the derivative work is
>> covered either by the original's license-to-copy or by the new
>> copyright of the entity that created the derivative work.
>> The intent of this "licensed" interpretation is further evidenced
>> by the requirement that derivative works contain a notice that they
>> are "derived from ...", since such a notice would serve no useful
>> purpose if the person was not allowed to make copies.
> Roy, but the issue here isn't copies, its distribution.  Remember that
> copyright was originally designed for books where the copying step was
> separate from the distribution step and was usually performed by  
> someone
> other than the distributor.  Just because I'm allowed to make an  
> unlimited
> number of copies of a piece of software, that does not mean that I'm
> allowed to provide a single one of those to another party.

Ouch!  You are, of course, quite right -- I completely missed that
"copy and use" was not equivalent to distribution.  For others, you
can see the distinction in


It didn't occur to me that they might only be licensing personal
use copies.  Blech.

> So, that leaves us with a situation where, if the text presented is  
> the
> only means of getting the right to distribute, we may have a problem.
> There may be another license somewhere that covers this code.  Then  
> again,
> there may not.  A clarification from RSA might be in order.

The origin is


which may or may not help.


View raw message