On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 04:47:21PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 10:25:22AM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 03:33:24PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I uploaded today a version of centericq with support for last msn protocol > > > (MSN9). I received a question from upstream author, he do not want to > > > include this patch in official release for the moment because he do not > > > know if this is legal. > > > > > > Does someone know if this MSN9 support is legal ? > > > > > > A short resume of the problem is given on gaim page [1], microsoft now > > > require a licence for connecting on a msn server. > > For the purposes of Debian, you need to concern yourself only with whether > > the software itself can be distributed without infringing on any copyright > > held on the software itself. As of version (4.9.2-5arc), centericq was > > distributable under the terms of the GNU GPL, which we generally consider to > > be acceptable. > > (The fact that end users might use the software for something illegal is > > irrelevant to whether or not it can be included in Debian. One can use > > mixmaster for industrial espionage, john to brute-force UNIX password files > > for the purpose of making unauthorized use of private computers, some > > half-dozen or more packet sniffers to run illegal wiretaps, GNU shred to > > destroy evidence, and xvidtune to commit arson[1]. We still distribute > > those). > However, that does not mean the same is true for the upstream author; > and if he requests that you wait until he's checked with a lawyer, I > don't think it's unreasonable to do so. My understanding of the above is that the request is being made by the upstream author of centericq, who is *not* the author of this patch. The gaim link referenced from the original post says "If not, people may find a way to connect anyway, but the legalities of this are pretty obvious." In fact, there doesn't seem to be anything obvious at all on that page; it refers to the DMCA and "intellectual property", but makes no mention of why reverse-engineering statutes don't protect this particular protocol deciphering, or how Microsoft expects to "require a license" for connecting to their network. There's simply not enough information here to support an informed decision about the legality of the code in question. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgpOxBwkvRHzj.pgp
Description: PGP signature