[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL compatibility question.

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.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: