Thanks Emmanuel for elaborating this so fine. It should be clear now. Let's do it in the following days, and don't forget it in future.
-----Original Message----- From: Emmanuel Lécharny [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2016 3:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Clear Kerby codes Le 07/01/16 08:15, Zheng, Kai a écrit : > Hi folks, > > There are some discussions that we need to double check our source codes to > ensure some of them are cleared up and attributed properly, something like > adding some recognition info as comments in codes like "According to krb5.hin > in MIT krb5". This should be done as an essential step upon release and > release. Even we don't release, we should do it, considering we're running > very fast and very likely to miss such things. We committers are committing > our own codes in the fly but without any guarding. Some projects need at > least a +1 for each change wrapped in a patch, we don't. This should work for > this early project but we would then need the post fixes. We don't need to > hurry, let's slow down a little bit. Thanks. Thanks Kai ! To be clear : the MIT Kerberos headers and API may be translated in Java, but we *must* provide a clear attribution when doing so. For three reasons : - first of all, because this is not *our* work, it's somebody else work and it's just fair to point to the original work - then it's important to know where the various elements are coming from. Most of the time, we can refer to a RFC, but there is not a RFC for every piece of code we have. For a new comer, it's important to know where the various bits are coming from - and last, not least, from a legal point of view, not doing so would put the whole Kerby projct in jeopardy, up to the point we may be asked to shutdwon it, something we don't want. For code (ie, implementation), and I'm not talking about .h or function prototypes, there is no way we can translate it : if you want to know why, just read http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html, part Piecewise Reimplementation. Now, there is no need to freak out, I understand that everybody is going full speed on a limited time, so mistakes can happen, nobody is to blame for that. Add to that it's a really complex matter, and I don't think any of us are lawyers, so it's quite easy to not being aware of such legal things. Anyway, please be careful, try to remember where the code is coming from for the existing code, and everything will be fine :-) Thanks !
