apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tom O'Brien <tom.obr...@ncf.ca>
Subject Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
Date Sun, 28 Sep 2008 01:42:39 GMT
From: Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com>
> Date: Thursday, September 11, 2008 6:36 am
> Subject: Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
>
>   
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:13:28AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>     
>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joe Orton <jorton@redhat.com> 
>>>       
>> wrote:> > I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora 
>> licensing FAQ:
>>     
>>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
>>>>
>>>> which references this statement from RSA:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as 
>>>>         
>> text/html, oops]
>>     
>>>> the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the
>>>> restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation,
>>>> retaining the RSA copyright notice alone.
>>>>
>>>> Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of
>>>> action?
>>>>         
>>> First, the above seems to present a conflicting state of affairs.
>>> I've only followed the links provided, so I may not understand the
>>> true story.  But if the original code was made available under the
>>> original BSD with advertising clause, then there is a specific right
>>> to redistribute provided, right?
>>>       
>> Sorry folks, I should have included more context in this.
>>
>> The code in question carries the license text referenced here:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-
>> discuss/200610.mbox/<20061016103814.GB1778@redhat.com>
>> this code is currently in APR but has been around since Apache 1.3.
>>
>>     
>>> Since we have actual lawyers engaged (ones who are reportedly not
>>> amused), how about inquiring as to whether such a course of action
>>> would, in fact, tickle their fancy?
>>>       
>> Tom, can you do that?
>>
>> Regards, Joe
>>
>>     
> ---------------------
> The lawyer's objection was to the original license text in the source
> code, which allowed use, but did not explicitly mention redistribution.
>
> I will pass the ietf link on to the lawyer, and see what he makes of it. 
> Thanks
> Tom.
>
> ----------------------------------
Unfortunately, the lawyer has declined to comment on the IETF link. I
have my marching orders for use of the library :-).

Tom.

Mime
View raw message