Re: Mozilla can't be GPL? (was: pkcs#11 license)
Ludovic Rousseau <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> After a bit of research we (Andreas, me and some others) found that all
> the applications using the PKCS#11 API also use tha RSA header files.
> These header files are the API reference so it is normal to use them.
I thought the API reference was the PDF from
which has a slightly different licence and wouldn't be copied
wholesale anyway, just the few names for interfacing.
It is interesting. Could one read the API reference documentation
and recreate the header files from the ideas?
If so, I'm surprised it hasn't been done already, but I can only find
the RSA files and a copy in gpkcs11.sf.net which seems to be the RSA
files with the copyright header stripped.
> - Does the RSA publicity clause conflict with the GPL used by Mozilla?
Yes. For a similar answer from licensing@gnu, see
It's a shame that RSA are using the ad clause. Not even UCB still does.
I think it has caused problems within the GnuPG community before.
> - Is Mozilla using an illegal licence?
No. It may be contradictory in that no-one can satisfy it, so no-one
can redistribute the NSS under the GPL, but it is not illegal.
> - Should Debian stop distributing Mozilla?
I don't know.
> I guess Mozilla lawyers already thought about the problem. Anybody knows if
> they consider the RSA publicity clause in conflict with GPL?
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct