On Wednesday 21 June 2006 01:56, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > George Danchev wrote: > > I believe that the reason to have that in Sofia-SIP's > >libsofia-sip-ua/su/strtoull.c is that it comes that way from the original > >contributors like University of California and Sun Microsystems. Whom > > legal writer counsel do you suggest to talk to ? UCB & Sun's or the > > Sofia-SIP upstream which code is licensed under LGPL ? I don't believe > > that that clause makes it non-free as of DFSG, but if you think > > otherwise, please express your points. > > The "restricted rights" thing is just fine and free as far as the DFSG, > IMHO, and I've never heard anyone on debian-legal assert otherwise: the > "restricted rights" clause simply asserts that the US Government doesn't > get any more rights than anyone else. > > The "restricted rights" thing might possibly be a GPL compatibility issue, > but I'd ask the FSF (www.gnu.org) what they think about that. I would > guess not, but what do I know. I see. This appears to be fine. Thanks for contacting FSF for me , though. > ---- > Unfortunately, there are DFSG-freeness issues in the package. > > >From COPYRIGHTS: > >The package also contains code derived from RFC 3174 (SHA1). The code is > >distributed with the following copyright notice by the Internet Society: > > > >Partly copyright (C) The Internet Society (2001). All Rights Reserved. > > > >This document [RFC3174] and translations of it may be copied and furnished > >to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or > >assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and > > ... > > This is a notorious problem. This is the RFC license, and it's non-free. > It's non-free because it only grants permission to make derivative works > which "comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation". > To be DFSG-free, it must grant permission to make derivative works in > general, even if they are for other purposes. In fact it explicitly > prohibits other modifications. :-( > > (In addition, the "Internet Society" copyright statement may well be false, > if the RFC was written in the US by authors not employed by the Internet > Society. The RFCs are unfortunately a nest of copyright incompetence.) > > Perhaps the usage is small enough that the code is not really a derivative > work of RFC3174. If you're lucky. If not, there's probably an alternate > SHA1 implementation somewhere which doesn't use the RFC sample code, which > could be substituted; the actual cipher almost certainly qualifies as an > uncopyrightable "fact". > ---- Aha, these are the files: libsofia-sip-ua/ipt/sofia-sip/sha1.h libsofia-sip-ua/ipt/sha1.c > All the other licenses are fine. Good. > Joe Smith noted two without an explicit right to sell, but the IBM one > grants the right to "use in any way he or she deems fit", which I think is > pretty definite permission. > > The other says "unrestricted use", which *probably* implies the right > to sell; I would contact Pekka Pessi and ask if that includes the right to > sell. If he says "yes", then I'd say it's fine. This applies to libsofia-sip-ua/ipt/rc4.c, and libsofia-sip-ua/su/getopt.c was incorrectly mentioned in the COPYRIGHTS, since it does not exist. Thanks for your help and clarifications! -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Attachment:
pgp2Yl5ejmhaR.pgp
Description: PGP signature