Hi and thanks for your quick reply, Le Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 08:24:34PM +0000, Andrew Suffield écrivait: > On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 07:17:23PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote: > > I'd like to have your opinion about a GPL compatibility issue. > > Libcanlock has been ITP'ed (#204933) and the goal is to have slrn use > > it (#127901). However, slrn is GPL and libcanlock is made of several > > files : > > > > - one is BSD licensed > > Presumably 3-clause BSD, that's fine. Yes, it's it. > > - 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 suspected it, thanks for the clarification. Le Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 08:29:28PM +0000, Andrew Suffield écrivait: > And it's just an implementation of sha1, which has plenty of free > implementations, so there's no excuse. There's a GPL one in gnupg, off > the top of my head. I'll go with that. Laurent.
Description: Digital signature