On Thursday 24 August 2006 21:19, MJ Ray took the opportunity to say:
> Magnus Holmgren <holmgren@lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 July 2006 12:15, Magnus Holmgren took the opportunity to
say:
> > > 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?
>
> I thought you were waiting for help contacting Yahoo. I don't think
> I can do more than you on that. Do you know that your clarification
> request ever got to a human? Have you tried following up by phone,
> fax or whatever?
That too. I haven't found any other way of contact, except
http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/permission.cfm. In any case it would
probably be cheaper for someone on the right side of the pond to call them.
> > Since DFSG apparently (according to the recent discussion) only deals
> > with copyright and restrictions imposed by the copyright owner, [...]
>
> Sorry, but I think that's nonsense. Please be careful who you believe.
> Check for yourself: try searching the DFSG and Social Contract for any
> such limit.
At least I provoked some responses. :-)
> > What about the Perl license and the OpenSSL license (my packages depend
> > on Perl OpenSSL wrapper packages)? [...]
> > Can someone please explain the full implications? My head is spinning...
>
> Yep, that's messy. I'm no OpenSSL expert - please start a new thread on
> that with OpenSSL in the subject so that wiser people will spot it.
>
> ftpmasters may be happy or not about the patent situation (it doesn't seem
> to be very actively enforced), but I guess the OpenSSL question needs
> checking.
When I think about it: Since there is no object code in the
libmail-domainkeys-perl or libmail-dkim-perl binary packages, there shouldn't
be any problems with GPL as far as *these* packages are concerned.
--
Magnus Holmgren holmgren@lysator.liu.se
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
Attachment:
pgpvs9QfOkeFF.pgp
Description: PGP signature