On 18.09.2007 19:44, Enrico Scholz wrote:
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway"
>> It should be enough to remove this license text (which is allowed since
>> 2000) to make it GPL compatible. Or, to make it legally perfect, remove
>> the old code, take recent version of RFC 1321, copy reference code from
>> it and remove the license text.
> Only RSA can remove the license text,
no; everybody can remove it because you can do everything what you want
to do with the code since 2000.
> The license text in the code itself trumps all.
Why? The text was written 1992 which was before the dual licensing to
public domain in 2000.
I like to let you two fight this out. But is there a real reasons to
continue this in private? I'd say it's time to move it to fedora-devel,
where everyone can participate. Maybe someone comes up with a
explanation we all don't know about yet? Did the debian guys never
discuss this earlier?
On 18.09.2007 15:31, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-09-18 at 09:02 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > My package mail-notification is GPL and uses it. :-/
> > But why are "*we* going to need to replace it"? Is the issue that
> > so there is not even 24 or 72 hours to talk to upstream to make them
> > aware of the issue first? Then maybe upstream can fix it quickly once
> > and for all and for all distributions? Or are we not allowed to talk
> > about this in public bug trackers?
No, the issue is not that urgent.
Thx for clarifying. It sounded a bit to me like this had to happen fast
We (Fedora) need to take action to remedy this.
Sure and np.
This could be in the form of writing a patch and submitting
it upstream for review, or simply pointing to upstream and having them
resolve it, then taking in the same changes in Fedora.
Sure -- but my upstream in this case is a bit problematic in general
already, thus I'd like to safe your and my time and discuss it first
with upstream to agree on a proper solution before working one out and
throwing it away.