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 Mon, 15 Sep 2008 00:45:10 GMT
----- Original Message -----
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.

Mime
View raw message