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.
> Could we get confirmation of this interpretation?
Did the person who made that argument substantiate it?
I think the interpretation is bogus, and RSA would have
complained by now if it had any reason to do so. We have been
distributing that code for at least 10 years. But it would be
nice to get confirmation from a lawyer that copyright law does
indeed work the way that I presume above.
....Roy