On Sun, Aug 28, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Christopher <ctubbsii(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 6:16 PM Igor Gnatenko
<ignatenko(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have some questions about OCB[0] and it's usage in Fedora.
>
> I wanted to package pycryptodome[1] and found that they implement OCB
> in their code. From my POV (completely without any legal knowledge) it
> seems that it's not completely free[2] as it's not allowed for
> military use. It seems to be allowed without any restrictions only for
> OpenSSL.
>
> What do you think? Looks like now we have mosh[3] packaged and it
> includes OCB (so if it's not acceptable, it most probably should be
> removed).
>
>
> [0]
http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/
> [1]
https://pycryptodome.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
> [2]
http://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/ocb/license.htm
> [3]
https://mosh.org
> --
> -Igor Gnatenko
>
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that OCB is available to be implemented
under 4 different license options:
1. Any open source software licensed under an approved license by OSI or
public domain.
2. General license for non-military use.
3. OpenSSL-specific use.
4. Special license from the patent owner.
Only option 2 has the non-military restriction, and anything in Fedora would
almost certainly fall under 1 or 3. So, I can't imagine there'd be a problem
using the OCB patent in Fedora software. I'm actually not even sure why
option 3 even exists, since it seems to be a subset of option 1. Regardless,
it doesn't look like the non-military restriction of option 2 would apply if
option 1 is used.
Unfortunately I don't know how licenses applies, so if
program is
licensed under OSI-approved license then 2nd license doesn't apply
anymore?
--
-Igor Gnatenko