On 18.09.2007 19:44, Enrico Scholz wrote:
"Tom \"spot\" Callaway"
<tcallawa(a)redhat.com> writes:
>> 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
urgent
> > 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
and silent.
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.
[...]
Cu
knurd