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 write: > > On Saturday 17 June 2006 23:02, Joe Smith took the opportunity to write: > > > "Magnus Holmgren" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
pgprc2WAkpFp3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
