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

Re: Question about RSA licence



On 31 Oct 2005 18:57:26 GMT MJ Ray wrote:

> Francesco Poli <frx@winstonsmith.info> wrote:
> > Wait a second: how can it be DFSG-free, when there's permission to
> > "copy and use" and to "make and use derivative works", but there's
> > no explicit permission to distribute the derivative works?
> > Did I miss something? [...]
> 
> You make and use the derivative, then copy and use it. Copying may
> even be a type of use. It would be neater to have clear derivative
> distribution permission, but unless we get a nutcase interpretation
> that says they behave like UW, it's good enough for me.

I don't think your interpretation is consistent with the license: it
states

|     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)").

|
|     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.

No license to copy or distribute is granted for derivative works (the
ones that must be identified as "derived from the RSA Security Inc. PKCS
#11 Cryptographic Token Interface (Cryptoki)").


> 
> > More bad news: I found out that some identically licensed files are
> > included in Apache2. [...]
> 
> Apache2 has fruity NOTICE requirements anyway, doesn't it? Should
> be enough to satisfy the RSA ones as consequence.

Maybe, but I'm concerned about the lack of permission to distribute
derivative works of those files...

> 
> > Moreover, Apache2 includes the following code (I'm quoting from the
> > debian/copyright file):
> > 
> > For the srclib\apr-util\test\testmd4.c component:
> [...]
> > This does not even grant *any* permissions.
> > Is this distributable at all?
> 
> 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?

-- 
    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
......................................................................
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpvQJeimxltz.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: