www-legal-discuss 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only.  Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF.  See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org


Mime
View raw message