Julien Pierre wrote:
It doesn't matter. The issue about exporting any distribution point APIs
is in question due to the patent at this time.
Julien, I'd like to know what exactly is wrong in the royalty-free
Entrust licence for that patent ?
Maybe it's useful that I give the links for the exact conditions ? :
http://www.ietf.org/entrust_license.html
http://www.entrust.com/resources/pdf/crl_patentlicense.pdf
I checked the archives of the ietf/pkix discussion list, and nobody
brought out complains since Entrust proposed it's licence term in 1998.
There has been at that time a broad consensus the terms were OK, and
concerns against including the extension inside 2459/3280 were relieved.
I only found one later message refering to the fact the conditions of
the licence could have been more open.
I believe Entrust probably doesn't actually care that much anymore about
that patent. If you have a constructed argumentation about why the terms
of the licence are not open enough and cause problem for an open source
implementation, I'm quite convinced bringing the issue before the
ietf/pkix will allow to find a solution to the problem.
I don't like legalese that much, but when I read the terms I agree they
probably didn't think enough about open source, and see that their
conditions could badly interfere with the OSI definition of open source,
because you can only sub-licence to end users. I think if that is
clearly explained to them and to the ietf, they will agree to some
modification so that your concerns are relieved. I think it should be
very feasible to have a more open clause for use with softwares covered
by an open source licence.
But here I'm only guessing what your concerns are, so what points
precisely block you and how should they be changed ?
_______________________________________________
mozilla-crypto mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-crypto
