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

Re: DomainKeys license(s)

On Thursday 27 July 2006 12:15, Magnus Holmgren took the opportunity to say:
> On Tuesday 20 June 2006 18:43, Magnus Holmgren took the opportunity to 
> > On Saturday 17 June 2006 23:02, Joe Smith took the opportunity to write:
> > > "Magnus Holmgren" <holmgren@lysator.liu.se> wrote 
> > >
> > > > What about the statement on http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys?
> > > >
> > > > "Yahoo!'s DomainKeys Intellectual Property may be licensed under
> > > > either of the following terms:
> > > > * Yahoo! DomainKeys Patent License Agreement
> > > > * GNU General Public License version 2.0 (and no other version)."
> > >
> > > Hmm.. the GPL does not deal directly with the patents, however,
> > > That statement presumably means that they grant a patent licence for
> > > all programs under the GPL 2.
> >
> > Confusing. We need a clarification.
> I sent a "clarification request" using their feedback form a couple of
> weeks ago. Still no reaction (reply or update of their web page). I asked
> if their intention is to license their patents as long as all code using
> them is available under (at least) GPL 2.0. If so, it should at least be
> safe (w.r.t. to copyright and patents) to package libmail-domainkeys-perl
> and
> libmail-dkim-perl.
> Can I and my sponsor proceed, assuming that nothing bad will happen? I
> think it's a pretty good assumption, but I guess that this kind of legal
> uncertainty is unacceptable. Can someone with more influence please try to
> get an answer out of Yahoo? Considering all the complaining about how
> broken SPF is, I reckon there must be some interest in DKIM.

I still haven't received any comment on this. Isn't anyone interested?

Since DFSG apparently (according to the recent discussion) only deals with 
copyright and restrictions imposed by the copyright owner, I assume that 
uploading the independently developed Perl packages, libmail-domainkeys-perl 
and libmail-dkim-perl, should be possible. Just one more question: 

What about the Perl license and the OpenSSL license (my packages depend on 
Perl OpenSSL wrapper packages)? The Perl license is a dual license 
("Artistic", which goes fine with OpenSSL (right?), + GPL, which is 
incompatible with OpenSSL. Doesn't the OpenSSL dependency destroy the GPL 
license option? Perhaps not for my packages, but for libcrypt-openssl-*-perl?

Can someone please explain the full implications? My head is spinning...

Magnus Holmgren        holmgren@lysator.liu.se
                       (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)

Attachment: pgpL1QgY4y0N_.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: