Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
"License to COPY this document is granted provided that it is
identified as "RSA Security Inc. Public-Key Cryptography Standards
(PKCS)" in all material mentioning or
referencing this document. "
so I can print the document (unchanged, so complient to this license),
and give it to someone else. that person receives a book from me,
nothing else. no contract or anything binding that person to me or
rsa labs. no obligation from rsa labs to me to not give anyone a copy
unless that persons signs a contract or anything like that.
so now that person has a book and no legal obligations other than
the normal copyright. in can quote. if it copies small parts, those
will not even be recognized as having any weight in terms of copyright
and thus won't be protected by copyright at all. and since the
pkcs#11 standard book is a technical standard, I'm pretty sure, the
individual lines defining some structure, function or constant/define
will be not considered to have any copyright on them.
I don't know who far we must interpret the term "copy". Is the new .h
file a copy of (part of) the PDF document?
even if some part is considered a copy, it is within what is allowed
under quotes and excerpts and thus again legal. for a quote or excerpt
they can demand proper reference, no more.
Maybe we should talk to a (real) lawyer?
true. I'm not a lawyer. on the other hand I have been following
discussions about copyright and all that for > 10 years no, so I hope
I'm totally clueless and my feeling tells me what we do is ok.
also I think werner is also very active with these topics, read and
heard a lot about it. but still we are no lawyers and might be
completely wrong, even if I think the chances for this are small.
Regards, Andreas
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
