Joe Orton wrote:
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]>
So isn't the appropriate action at this point to simply amend the license
embedded in both httpd and apr to state RSA's revised license statement
offered to the IETF?
