[Patches] [ python-Patches-1117961 ] replace md5 impl. with one having a more free license

[SourceForge.net]

Patches item #1117961, was opened at 2005-02-07 17:10
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by loewis
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1117961&group_id=5470

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Modules
Group: Python 2.5
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 6
Submitted By: Matthias Klose (doko)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: replace md5 impl. with one having a more free license

Initial Comment:
details at
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2005-February/051450.html

the code is taken from Debian's dpkg source package,
which should at least build on Linux, the Hurd and the
kfreebsd-gnu and knetbsd-gnu BSD variants.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2006-04-02 18:19

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627

This entire issue was started not because of Python/PSF
concerns, but because of Debian concerns.

For Python, I think the following guideline should apply:
- get permission to relicense (through contributor's
agreement) if feasible; this should be an absolute
requirement only for new code. In this case, this is
replacing some non-PSF license with another, so the
requirement for a copyright agreement should be waived.

- the license should permit us to do what we do (in
particular, copy the code and create derivative works)

- reqirements for mentioning the authors outside the source
(e.g. in accompanying documentation) should be avoided.

This is an ad-hoc policy, but this code would pass, so I'm
fine with it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Anthony Baxter (anthonybaxter)
Date: 2006-04-02 06:35

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=29957

That one comes with a zlib/libpng license. As far as I know,
this is acceptable for us to include. Does anyone know
otherwise? Is there a statement somewhere about which
licenses are acceptable for inclusion?


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Matthias Klose (doko)
Date: 2006-04-01 18:31

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=60903

updated the patch with the implementation from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/libmd5-rfc/


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2005-02-12 00:43

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627

As Jeremy Hylton explains on python-dev, this is
unacceptable, as it relies on the notion of a "public domain".

I agree, and believe this would make things worse than they
are: the statement of the author that his work is in the
public domain is legally void. Furthermore, the author does
not provide a license (as he believes he doesn't need to),
and it is questionable what license precisely can be implied
- strictyl speaking, the author maintains the full rights to
his work, licensing none.

Rejecting the patch.

It would be nice if the author could be asked to license the
work under, say, the Academic Free License, with an
additional permission to anybody to relicense it under any
terms they please.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1117961&group_id=5470