Re: Question about RSA licence
MJ Ray wrote:
> ludovic.rousseau@free.fr wrote:
> > The opensc package includes rsaref headers [0] from RSA. [...]
>
> > - is this licence DFSG compliant? I would say yes but the (re)distribution right
> > is not explicitely given.
> >
> > - is this licence GPL compatible? I would say no since it has the same problem
> > than the original BSD licence [4].
>
> I think I agree with you on both, with very mild concern about lack of
> explicit permission.
OK, so OpenSC is still DFSG compliant.
> opensc seems to be LGPL now, but GPL-compatibility
> is a problem for things linking with libopensc1: gpgsm, for example.
> Are there alternatives available?
Alternatives to libopensc1 (gpgsm Depends on it)? I don't think so.
Alternatives to the RSA header files? I don't know but that would be the
occasion to rewrite them using a better licence if we have to.
> Do opensc want to block gpgsm support?
I guess not. That is not the intention.
The OpenSC has a Credit page [1]. This page includes, without distinction,
the licence(s) and the credits.
Should the OpenSC licence be a concatenation of the GNU LGPL and the RSA
licence? Or can OpenSC be LGPL without any mention of the RSA licence?
Should OpenSC make a distinction between the "obligation" to credit RSA
security and include this obligation in OpenSC licence, and simple credits
OpenSC has no obligation to make like the use of getopt (LGPL)?
> Thanks for working on this,
Thanks to helping.
[1] http://www.opensc.org/opensc/wiki/AuthorsAndCredits
--
Ludovic Rousseau
Reply to: