On Thursday 24 August 2006 21:19, MJ Ray took the opportunity to say: > Magnus Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thursday 27 July 2006 12:15, Magnus Holmgren took the opportunity to say: > > > I sent a "clarification request" using their feedback form a couple of > > > weeks ago. Still no reaction (reply or update of their web page). I > > > asked if their intention is to license their patents as long as all > > > code using them is available under (at least) GPL 2.0. If so, it should > > > at least be safe (w.r.t. to copyright and patents) to package > > > libmail-domainkeys-perl and libmail-dkim-perl. > > > > > > Can I and my sponsor proceed, assuming that nothing bad will happen? I > > > think it's a pretty good assumption, but I guess that this kind of > > > legal uncertainty is unacceptable. Can someone with more influence > > > please try to get an answer out of Yahoo? Considering all the > > > complaining about how broken SPF is, I reckon there must be some > > > interest in DKIM. > > > > I still haven't received any comment on this. Isn't anyone interested? > > I thought you were waiting for help contacting Yahoo. I don't think > I can do more than you on that. Do you know that your clarification > request ever got to a human? Have you tried following up by phone, > fax or whatever?
That too. I haven't found any other way of contact, except http://yhoo.client.shareholder.com/press/permission.cfm. In any case it would probably be cheaper for someone on the right side of the pond to call them. > > Since DFSG apparently (according to the recent discussion) only deals > > with copyright and restrictions imposed by the copyright owner, [...] > > Sorry, but I think that's nonsense. Please be careful who you believe. > Check for yourself: try searching the DFSG and Social Contract for any > such limit. At least I provoked some responses. :-) > > What about the Perl license and the OpenSSL license (my packages depend > > on Perl OpenSSL wrapper packages)? [...] > > Can someone please explain the full implications? My head is spinning... > > Yep, that's messy. I'm no OpenSSL expert - please start a new thread on > that with OpenSSL in the subject so that wiser people will spot it. > > ftpmasters may be happy or not about the patent situation (it doesn't seem > to be very actively enforced), but I guess the OpenSSL question needs > checking. When I think about it: Since there is no object code in the libmail-domainkeys-perl or libmail-dkim-perl binary packages, there shouldn't be any problems with GPL as far as *these* packages are concerned. -- Magnus Holmgren [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Cc of list mail needed, thanks)
pgpgWauobymw7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
