Misunderstanding GPL's terms and conditions as restrictions
Alexandre Oliva
aoliva at redhat.com
Tue Jul 29 07:27:41 UTC 2008
On Jul 29, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> No, RSAREF couldn't have been modified. It had restricted
> distribution and everyone had to get their own copy.
http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/browse_thread/thread/ecc4d4ff360019e/b3dbb6f89144b706?lnk=st&q=gnu.misc.discuss+ripem#b3dbb6f89144b706
http://www.nic.funet.fi/index/crypt/cryptography/rpem/ripem/
http://www.nic.funet.fi/index/crypt/cryptography/rpem/ripem/README
http://www.nic.funet.fi/index/crypt/cryptography/rpem/ripem/rsaref/
There is indeed a lot of conflicting information out there, and the
files above are older than the discussion, but the point stands that
some piece of software could only be distributed under the GPL, and by
people who had accepted a patent license that prevented them from
doing just that, regardless of any copyright license
incompatibilities.
--
Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
FSFLA Board Member ¡Sé Libre! => http://www.fsfla.org/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list