William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > 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?
Well, this suggestion still stands. Modify the embedded code to reflect the license statement of RSA?
