Re: Question about RSA licence
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Question about RSA licence
- From: MJ Ray <email@example.com>
- Date: 01 Nov 2005 19:12:20 GMT
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Francesco Poli <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> | License to copy and use this software is granted provided that it
> | is identified as "RSA Security Inc. PKCS #11 Cryptographic Token
> | Interface (Cryptoki)" in all material mentioning or referencing this
> | software or this function.
> Permission to copy is granted for something that is clearly unmodified
> (it must be identified as "RSA Security Inc. PKCS #11 Cryptographic
> Token Interface (Cryptoki)").
It (the original) is still so identified by the following:
> | License is also granted to make and use derivative works provided
> | that such works are identified as "derived from the RSA Security Inc.
> | PKCS #11 Cryptographic Token Interface (Cryptoki)" in all material
> | mentioning or referencing the derived work.
I think it's a stretch to claim the permission only covers unmodifieds.
It would be better clearer, but it doesn't seem a problem.
> > Yes. That seems to be a copyright *notice*, not a licence.
> > What licence covers the file?
> The debian/copyright file does not seem to say that. Hence *either*
> debian/copyright is incomplete (minor bug) *or* testmd4.c is
> undistributable (serious bug).
> Is that right?
Given the main licence does not enumerates exactly which parts
it covers, I'd suspect incomplete if anything, but I don't see
why you're so sure it's not under the main licence's terms.
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct