On Nov 30, 8:06 pm, smu johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > In case you want peoples' two cents, my understanding of it is the > following: > > You can use part or all of the entire thing in your program, without giving > back any credit to Crypto++, or having to release the source, or anything > like that. However, you can't claim you wrote it if you didn't. > > As far as the "distinction", I believe it means you can't release the entire > thing together and claim that you wrote the C++ crypto library, which would > be plagiarizing it. The credit in that case still goes to Wei Dai. > > But thanks for posting this, as I also find the writing on the main website > unclear. I would like to read what it means in black & white text, too. All in all, I believe that is Wei's intent. And I have always taken it that way.
Unfortunately, the legislature, lawyers, and judges have the US legal system fairly well fucked up. So I understand why these guys want want an unambiguous definitions of the terms - its too damn expensive to sort the mess. Jeff > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Jeffrey Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Wei, > > > I was talking with some folks who are interested in using Crypto++. > > They are slightly confused by the license - specifically, use of the > > word "compilation" and its meaning in legal terms. Here's the way the > > discussion carried on. > > > "A distinction is made between the library as a compilation (i.e., > > collection) .... and the individual files in it, which are public > > domain." (website) > > - Wei Dai is retaining copyright over all files that make up Crypto+ > > +. If one or more files are missing from the collection of all files, > > Dai is not asserting his copyright. Dai is retaining copyright on the > > single ZIP file which contains the collection of all files. > > > "The library is copyrighted as a compilation in order to place certain > > disclaimers...." (website) > > - Wei Dai is asserting copyright over the output of the compilation > > and link process. It is unclear whether the assertion applies to all > > resulting bianaries (for example, a DLL or LIB produced from the > > sources by a programmer) or just the FIPS DLL (which [presumably] Dai > > produced himself). > > > "... compilation in any form, except in object code, ...." (license > > text) > > - Wei Dai is asserting his copyright on the collection of all source > > files, and the resulting binary. Dai is not asserting the right for > > intermediate files of the compilation process: the object files (*.o). > > > "...If this compilation is used in object code form in an application > > software..." (license text) > > - Wei Dai is not asserting his copyright on intermediate files of the > > compilation process (object files, *.o). A LIB is a collection of > > intermediate object files, so Dai is not retaining copyright on a LIB. > > However, Dai retains copyright over a DLL since the resuting binary is > > not intermediate an can be executed. > > > It seems the word compilation can be misinterpreted as "resulting > > binary". Would you be able to clarify the use of "compilation'? > > > Jeff > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ > > Users" Google Group. > > To unsubscribe, send an email to > > [email protected]. > > More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at > >http://www.cryptopp.com. > > -- > smu johnson <[email protected]> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected]. More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com.
