On Saturday, Feb 8, 2003, at 10:43 US/Eastern, David wrote:
To quote from the OpenSSL license:On Samstag, Februar 8, 2003, at 04:18 Uhr, Kyle Moffett wrote:This seems to be a rather iffy case of license violation. I will have to check back with the lawyers on Monday. There are several approaches to fixing this. It now dependson you Max, drm and RR how this should be handled. Fell free to "abuse" our legal department.There are two major problems with this: 1) Licensing violations.
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
*
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
* the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
* distribution.
[...]
* 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
* acknowledgment:
* "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
* for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.openssl.org/)"
[...]
* This product includes cryptographic software written by Eric Young
* ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). This product includes software written by Tim
* Hudson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).
*
*/
[...]
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
* modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
* are met:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
* documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
Therefore, they are violating the license, no OpenSSL license, no
"This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for
use in the OpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.openssl.org/)" statement, and no
Eric Young license.
For Dlcompat:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Therefore, another license has been broken.
Finally, for Curl:
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any purpose
with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright
notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
Therefore, the THIRD license has been broken.
I think that this is rather clear cut. All three licenses state explicitly
that a copy of the license MUST be included with any distribution,
binary or otherwise, and in the case of OpenSSL, an additional
in-software notice.
Cheers,
Kyle Moffett
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++:- a16 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$
L+++(++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w---(-) O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+
PGP? t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h! !r-- !y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by:
SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See!
http://www.vasoftware.com
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
