directory-kerby mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Emmanuel Lécharny <elecha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Clear Kerby codes
Date Thu, 07 Jan 2016 07:31:15 GMT
Le 07/01/16 08:15, Zheng, Kai a écrit :
> Hi folks,
>
> There are some discussions that we need to double check our source codes to ensure some
of them are cleared up and attributed properly, something like adding some recognition info
as comments in codes like "According to krb5.hin in MIT krb5". This should be done as an essential
step upon release and release. Even we don't release, we should do it, considering we're running
very fast and very likely to miss such things.  We committers are committing our own codes
in the fly but without any guarding. Some projects need at least a +1 for each change wrapped
in a patch, we don't. This should work for this early project but we would then need the post
fixes. We don't need to hurry, let's slow down a little bit. Thanks.

Thanks Kai !

To be clear : the MIT Kerberos headers and API may be translated in
Java, but we *must* provide a clear attribution when doing so. For three
reasons :
- first of all, because this is not *our* work, it's somebody else work
and it's just fair to point to the original work
- then it's important to know where the various elements are coming
from. Most of the time, we can refer to a RFC, but there is not a RFC
for every piece of code we have. For a new comer, it's important to know
where the various bits are coming from
- and last, not least, from a legal point of view, not doing so would
put the whole Kerby projct in jeopardy, up to the point we may be asked
to shutdwon it, something we don't want.

For code (ie, implementation), and I'm not talking about .h or function
prototypes, there is no way we can translate it : if you want to know
why, just read http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html,
part Piecewise Reimplementation.

Now, there is no need to freak out, I understand that everybody is going
full speed on a limited time, so mistakes can happen, nobody is to blame
for that. Add to that it's a really complex matter, and I don't think
any of us are lawyers, so it's quite easy to not being aware of such
legal things.

Anyway, please be careful, try to remember where the code is coming from
for the existing code, and everything will be fine :-)

Thanks !




Mime
View raw message