On Jul 29, 2008, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Jul 28, 2008, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> RSAREF didn't stop the program from being created in the first place, >>> or from being distributed under the GPL in source form. >> Per the FSF, RIPEM was a derived work of gmp and could not be >> distributed execept under the GPL. However that was impossible >> because RSAREF was needed and had other terms. > I don't see where the FSF said such a thing. I see the FSF discussing > restrictive patent licenses that SSH developers had accepted, and that > didn't permit them to distribute the work under the GPL, with as > little as plugs for RSAREF to be used. Err... Digging further, I found out that RIPEM included RSAREF, and it was RSAREF itself that had been modified in such a way that it became a derived work of GPLed work. So this modified version of RSAREF could only be distributed under the GPL, which neither the patent license nor the copyright license under which RSAREF were provided permitted. So is looks like it is the main program (SSH?) that was the distraction. Anyhow, if you have pointers to more specific information about what the FSF actually wrote (all I found was second-hand hearsay), I'd love to know more about it. -- 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} -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
