Re: GPL compatibility question.
Andrew Suffield (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> > - one is taken from RFC 3174
> > (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3174.html, license terms at the end).
> Not a chance, that's nowhere near GPL-compatible.
> It also appears to be non-free in its own right.
> > I don't like the wording of "derivative work that comment on...", I
> > think it narrows the scope of what kind of derivative works are
> > allowed.
> It prohibits almost any derivative work. This is very close to a
> "shared source" license.
The license at the bottom is the standard RFC copyright statement, and
the authors state that their implementation is being published to ensure
widespread adoption. It seems likely that having the source code
subject to that license was a mistake.
Emailing them might be appropriate.