On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:13:28AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joe Orton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora licensing FAQ: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ > > > > which references this statement from RSA: > > > > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as text/html, oops] > > > > the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the > > restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation, > > retaining the RSA copyright notice alone. > > > > Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of > > action? > > First, the above seems to present a conflicting state of affairs. > I've only followed the links provided, so I may not understand the > true story. But if the original code was made available under the > original BSD with advertising clause, then there is a specific right > to redistribute provided, right?
Sorry folks, I should have included more context in this. The code in question carries the license text referenced here: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200610.mbox/<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> this code is currently in APR but has been around since Apache 1.3. > Since we have actual lawyers engaged (ones who are reportedly not > amused), how about inquiring as to whether such a course of action > would, in fact, tickle their fancy? Tom, can you do that? Regards, Joe
