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

Re: Cryptlib licence

On 2004-03-04 18:58:55 +0000 Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:

Apparently, the license (text below) is a BSD-sans-advertising -like. More eyes, please:

Clauses 1 and 2 are identical to BSD. Clause 3 is entirely different.

3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how to obtain complete source code for the cryptlib software and any accompanying software that uses the cryptlib software. The source code must either be included in the distribution or be available for no more than the cost of
  distribution, and must be freely redistributable under reasonable
conditions. For an executable file, complete source code means the source code for all modules it contains or uses. It does not include source code for modules or files that typically accompany the major components of the
  operating system on which the executable file runs.

This looks like an attempt to graft source disclosure requirements onto a FreeBSD-style licence.

Is this similar to the fictional "pickle-passing licence" I wondered about last year? Instead of a pickle, we have a required information block. It says "accompanied by" rather than "include". If it is pickle-like, we seemed to agree that wasn't free.

Are "reasonable conditions" or "modules" known terms? Does this mean that you are compelled to publish the source for libraries used by a derived work under terms of this author's choosing? Looks like a lawyerbomb to me. I don't think I can decide whether this is free without further information.

MJR/slef     My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at
 Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/

Reply to: