[Fedora-legal-list] a java license puzzler (not a fedora package though)

[Julius Davies]

Cryptix32 is a very old java project.  I think development stopped
back in 2000.  Nonetheless it's a real challenge for our license
detection tools.  I'm curious what you guys think, but don't waste
time on it if you're busy.  Here is the source file that's tripping up
our tool.  I've also included the project LICENSE.TXT for reference:

http://juliusdavies.ca/cryptix-3.2.0/src/cryptix/provider/cipher/DES.java

http://juliusdavies.ca/cryptix-3.2.0/LICENCE.TXT


At the very bottom of the DES.java file I see a variation of BSD4
appearing for two different copyright holders (1995 and 1996),
although it's missing the "non-endorsement" clause.

Meanwhile interspersed in the code I see "Copyright 1997 All Rights
Reserved" with no license and with again different copyright holders.

Finally, the "LICENSE.TXT" that the project ships is BSD2 and shows
yet again another copyright holder.



If I go by Spot's "cascading licensing rules" tips on the wiki, I
guess I would conclude it is the least open-source-compatible license
possible, since 1997 is the latest date in the source file!


1997 - All Rights Reserved



And yet all these mixed messages make me suspect the license is truly
BSD2 as specified in LICENSE.TXT, just poorly specified.  So I have
three academic questions for the experts:


1.  Without contacting the copyright holders, what would you conclude?
 BSD4 without non-endorsement?   Or BSD2?   Or just "All rights
reserved" ?

2.  Is this the kind of situation where contacting the copyright
holders for clarification is necessary?

3.  And, hypothetical question, what if contacting the copyright
holders was impossible?







-- 
yours,

Julius Davies
250-592-2284 (Home)

$ sudo apt-get install cowsay
$ echo "Moo." | cowsay | cowsay -n | cowsay -n
http://juliusdavies.ca/cowsay/