On 2004-03-04 18:58:55 +0000 Humberto Massa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Apparently, the license (text below) is a BSD-sans-advertising -like.
More
eyes, please:
Clauses 1 and 2 are identical to BSD. Clause 3 is entirely different.
3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
how to
obtain complete source code for the cryptlib software and any
accompanying
software that uses the cryptlib software. The source code must
either be
included in the distribution or be available for no more than the
cost of
distribution, and must be freely redistributable under reasonable
conditions. For an executable file, complete source code means the
source
code for all modules it contains or uses. It does not include
source code
for modules or files that typically accompany the major components
of the
operating system on which the executable file runs.
This looks like an attempt to graft source disclosure requirements
onto a FreeBSD-style licence.
Is this similar to the fictional "pickle-passing licence" I wondered
about last year? Instead of a pickle, we have a required information
block. It says "accompanied by" rather than "include". If it is
pickle-like, we seemed to agree that wasn't free.
Are "reasonable conditions" or "modules" known terms? Does this mean
that you are compelled to publish the source for libraries used by a
derived work under terms of this author's choosing? Looks like a
lawyerbomb to me. I don't think I can decide whether this is free
without further information.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
