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/ _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/legal
