You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> on 2008/09/10 10:24:23 UTC
Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 01:24:58PM -0400, Tom O'Brien wrote:
> Hi all:
> I'm using the Log4Cxx logging library in a project, and it uses apr and
> apr-util as part of the implementation. In reviewing the license to
> apr-util, I noticed it contained a reference to the RSA reference
> implementation to md4 and md5. The lawyers here got a look at the
> license, and were not amused (no specific right to redistribute). I saw
> that the Debian team had raised a similar issue in the mailing list archive.
I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora licensing FAQ:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
which references this statement from RSA:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as text/html, oops]
the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the
restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation,
retaining the RSA copyright notice alone.
Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of
action?
Regards, Joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:13:28AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora licensing FAQ:
>>>>
>>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
>>>>
>>>> which references this statement from RSA:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as
>>>> text/html, oops]
>>>>
>>>> the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the
>>>> restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation,
>>>> retaining the RSA copyright notice alone.
>>>>
>>>> Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of
>>>> action?
>>> First, the above seems to present a conflicting state of affairs.
>>> I've only followed the links provided, so I may not understand the
>>> true story. But if the original code was made available under the
>>> original BSD with advertising clause, then there is a specific right
>>> to redistribute provided, right?
>>
>> Sorry folks, I should have included more context in this.
>>
>> The code in question carries the license text referenced here:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200610.mbox/<20...@redhat.com>
>>
>
> So isn't the appropriate action at this point to simply amend the license
> embedded in both httpd and apr to state RSA's revised license statement
> offered to the IETF?
Well, this suggestion still stands. Modify the embedded code to reflect
the license statement of RSA?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:13:28AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora licensing FAQ:
>>>>
>>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
>>>>
>>>> which references this statement from RSA:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as
>>>> text/html, oops]
>>>>
>>>> the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the
>>>> restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation,
>>>> retaining the RSA copyright notice alone.
>>>>
>>>> Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of
>>>> action?
>>> First, the above seems to present a conflicting state of affairs.
>>> I've only followed the links provided, so I may not understand the
>>> true story. But if the original code was made available under the
>>> original BSD with advertising clause, then there is a specific right
>>> to redistribute provided, right?
>>
>> Sorry folks, I should have included more context in this.
>>
>> The code in question carries the license text referenced here:
>>
>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200610.mbox/<20...@redhat.com>
>>
>
> So isn't the appropriate action at this point to simply amend the license
> embedded in both httpd and apr to state RSA's revised license statement
> offered to the IETF?
Well, this suggestion still stands. Modify the embedded code to reflect
the license statement of RSA?
Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Joe Orton wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:13:28AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora licensing FAQ:
>>>
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
>>>
>>> which references this statement from RSA:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as text/html, oops]
>>>
>>> the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the
>>> restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation,
>>> retaining the RSA copyright notice alone.
>>>
>>> Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of
>>> action?
>> First, the above seems to present a conflicting state of affairs.
>> I've only followed the links provided, so I may not understand the
>> true story. But if the original code was made available under the
>> original BSD with advertising clause, then there is a specific right
>> to redistribute provided, right?
>
> Sorry folks, I should have included more context in this.
>
> The code in question carries the license text referenced here:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200610.mbox/<20...@redhat.com>
So isn't the appropriate action at this point to simply amend the license
embedded in both httpd and apr to state RSA's revised license statement
offered to the IETF?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Joe Orton wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:13:28AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora licensing FAQ:
>>>
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
>>>
>>> which references this statement from RSA:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as text/html, oops]
>>>
>>> the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the
>>> restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation,
>>> retaining the RSA copyright notice alone.
>>>
>>> Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of
>>> action?
>> First, the above seems to present a conflicting state of affairs.
>> I've only followed the links provided, so I may not understand the
>> true story. But if the original code was made available under the
>> original BSD with advertising clause, then there is a specific right
>> to redistribute provided, right?
>
> Sorry folks, I should have included more context in this.
>
> The code in question carries the license text referenced here:
>
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200610.mbox/<20...@redhat.com>
So isn't the appropriate action at this point to simply amend the license
embedded in both httpd and apr to state RSA's revised license statement
offered to the IETF?
Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:13:28AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora licensing FAQ:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
> >
> > which references this statement from RSA:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as text/html, oops]
> >
> > the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the
> > restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation,
> > retaining the RSA copyright notice alone.
> >
> > Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of
> > action?
>
> First, the above seems to present a conflicting state of affairs.
> I've only followed the links provided, so I may not understand the
> true story. But if the original code was made available under the
> original BSD with advertising clause, then there is a specific right
> to redistribute provided, right?
Sorry folks, I should have included more context in this.
The code in question carries the license text referenced here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200610.mbox/<20...@redhat.com>
this code is currently in APR but has been around since Apache 1.3.
> Since we have actual lawyers engaged (ones who are reportedly not
> amused), how about inquiring as to whether such a course of action
> would, in fact, tickle their fancy?
Tom, can you do that?
Regards, Joe
Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com>.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 11:13:28AM -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora licensing FAQ:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
> >
> > which references this statement from RSA:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as text/html, oops]
> >
> > the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the
> > restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation,
> > retaining the RSA copyright notice alone.
> >
> > Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of
> > action?
>
> First, the above seems to present a conflicting state of affairs.
> I've only followed the links provided, so I may not understand the
> true story. But if the original code was made available under the
> original BSD with advertising clause, then there is a specific right
> to redistribute provided, right?
Sorry folks, I should have included more context in this.
The code in question carries the license text referenced here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200610.mbox/<20...@redhat.com>
this code is currently in APR but has been around since Apache 1.3.
> Since we have actual lawyers engaged (ones who are reportedly not
> amused), how about inquiring as to whether such a course of action
> would, in fact, tickle their fancy?
Tom, can you do that?
Regards, Joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
The IETF IPR statement from RSA [http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all ]
says this: "Implementations of these message-digest algorithms, including
implementations derived from the reference C code in RFC-1319, RFC-1320, and
RFC-1321, may be made, used, and sold without license from RSA for any
purpose."
The only restriction is as to implementations "created, implemented, or
distributed by RSA."
Please help me understand why the lawyers who looked at this IETF statement
"were not amused." I'm personally delighted by these terms.
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sa3ruby@gmail.com [mailto:sa3ruby@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:13 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; Tom O'Brien; dev@apr.apache.org
> Subject: Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 01:24:58PM -0400, Tom O'Brien wrote:
> >> Hi all:
> >> I'm using the Log4Cxx logging library in a project, and it uses apr and
> >> apr-util as part of the implementation. In reviewing the license to
> >> apr-util, I noticed it contained a reference to the RSA reference
> >> implementation to md4 and md5. The lawyers here got a look at the
> >> license, and were not amused (no specific right to redistribute). I saw
> >> that the Debian team had raised a similar issue in the mailing list
> archive.
> >
> > I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora licensing FAQ:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
> >
> > which references this statement from RSA:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as text/html,
> oops]
> >
> > the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the
> > restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation,
> > retaining the RSA copyright notice alone.
> >
> > Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of
> > action?
>
> First, the above seems to present a conflicting state of affairs.
> I've only followed the links provided, so I may not understand the
> true story. But if the original code was made available under the
> original BSD with advertising clause, then there is a specific right
> to redistribute provided, right?
>
> Second, if we accept code, it either needs to be covered under a CLA
> (or, in the case of minor patches, be covered by the definition of a
> Contribution in the Apache License, Version 2.0), or we need a
> separate license. Perhaps we could consider treating the statement
> posted on the IETF site as such.
>
> Since we have actual lawyers engaged (ones who are reportedly not
> amused), how about inquiring as to whether such a course of action
> would, in fact, tickle their fancy?
>
> If so, we can proceed to determine what ASF policy adjustments would
> be required to enable this, and decide whether or not we were
> comfortable with such. I, for example, am currently uncomfortable
> with the thoughts of us modifying such code (under what license would
> we use for such modifications?) and specifically uncomfortable about
> removing licensing statements.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
RE: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
Posted by Lawrence Rosen <lr...@rosenlaw.com>.
The IETF IPR statement from RSA [http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all ]
says this: "Implementations of these message-digest algorithms, including
implementations derived from the reference C code in RFC-1319, RFC-1320, and
RFC-1321, may be made, used, and sold without license from RSA for any
purpose."
The only restriction is as to implementations "created, implemented, or
distributed by RSA."
Please help me understand why the lawyers who looked at this IETF statement
"were not amused." I'm personally delighted by these terms.
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sa3ruby@gmail.com [mailto:sa3ruby@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 8:13 AM
> To: legal-discuss@apache.org; Tom O'Brien; dev@apr.apache.org
> Subject: Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
>
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 01:24:58PM -0400, Tom O'Brien wrote:
> >> Hi all:
> >> I'm using the Log4Cxx logging library in a project, and it uses apr and
> >> apr-util as part of the implementation. In reviewing the license to
> >> apr-util, I noticed it contained a reference to the RSA reference
> >> implementation to md4 and md5. The lawyers here got a look at the
> >> license, and were not amused (no specific right to redistribute). I saw
> >> that the Debian team had raised a similar issue in the mailing list
> archive.
> >
> > I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora licensing FAQ:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
> >
> > which references this statement from RSA:
> >
> > http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as text/html,
> oops]
> >
> > the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the
> > restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation,
> > retaining the RSA copyright notice alone.
> >
> > Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of
> > action?
>
> First, the above seems to present a conflicting state of affairs.
> I've only followed the links provided, so I may not understand the
> true story. But if the original code was made available under the
> original BSD with advertising clause, then there is a specific right
> to redistribute provided, right?
>
> Second, if we accept code, it either needs to be covered under a CLA
> (or, in the case of minor patches, be covered by the definition of a
> Contribution in the Apache License, Version 2.0), or we need a
> separate license. Perhaps we could consider treating the statement
> posted on the IETF site as such.
>
> Since we have actual lawyers engaged (ones who are reportedly not
> amused), how about inquiring as to whether such a course of action
> would, in fact, tickle their fancy?
>
> If so, we can proceed to determine what ASF policy adjustments would
> be required to enable this, and decide whether or not we were
> comfortable with such. I, for example, am currently uncomfortable
> with the thoughts of us modifying such code (under what license would
> we use for such modifications?) and specifically uncomfortable about
> removing licensing statements.
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
> constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
> and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
> official ASF policies and documents.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 01:24:58PM -0400, Tom O'Brien wrote:
>> Hi all:
>> I'm using the Log4Cxx logging library in a project, and it uses apr and
>> apr-util as part of the implementation. In reviewing the license to
>> apr-util, I noticed it contained a reference to the RSA reference
>> implementation to md4 and md5. The lawyers here got a look at the
>> license, and were not amused (no specific right to redistribute). I saw
>> that the Debian team had raised a similar issue in the mailing list archive.
>
> I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora licensing FAQ:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
>
> which references this statement from RSA:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as text/html, oops]
>
> the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the
> restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation,
> retaining the RSA copyright notice alone.
>
> Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of
> action?
First, the above seems to present a conflicting state of affairs.
I've only followed the links provided, so I may not understand the
true story. But if the original code was made available under the
original BSD with advertising clause, then there is a specific right
to redistribute provided, right?
Second, if we accept code, it either needs to be covered under a CLA
(or, in the case of minor patches, be covered by the definition of a
Contribution in the Apache License, Version 2.0), or we need a
separate license. Perhaps we could consider treating the statement
posted on the IETF site as such.
Since we have actual lawyers engaged (ones who are reportedly not
amused), how about inquiring as to whether such a course of action
would, in fact, tickle their fancy?
If so, we can proceed to determine what ASF policy adjustments would
be required to enable this, and decide whether or not we were
comfortable with such. I, for example, am currently uncomfortable
with the thoughts of us modifying such code (under what license would
we use for such modifications?) and specifically uncomfortable about
removing licensing statements.
- Sam Ruby
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only. Statements made on this list are not privileged, do not
constitute legal advice, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
and policies of the ASF. See <http://www.apache.org/licenses/> for
official ASF policies and documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: apr-util removal of md4/md5 algorithms (legal issue)
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Joe Orton <jo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 01:24:58PM -0400, Tom O'Brien wrote:
>> Hi all:
>> I'm using the Log4Cxx logging library in a project, and it uses apr and
>> apr-util as part of the implementation. In reviewing the license to
>> apr-util, I noticed it contained a reference to the RSA reference
>> implementation to md4 and md5. The lawyers here got a look at the
>> license, and were not amused (no specific right to redistribute). I saw
>> that the Debian team had raised a similar issue in the mailing list archive.
>
> I just noticed that this issue is covered in the Fedora licensing FAQ:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/FAQ
>
> which references this statement from RSA:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/RSA-MD-all [plain text sent as text/html, oops]
>
> the Fedora FAQ says that based on this, we can simply strip the
> restrictive licensing statements from the MD4/MD5 implementation,
> retaining the RSA copyright notice alone.
>
> Can legal-discuss@ confirm whether this is an acceptable course of
> action?
First, the above seems to present a conflicting state of affairs.
I've only followed the links provided, so I may not understand the
true story. But if the original code was made available under the
original BSD with advertising clause, then there is a specific right
to redistribute provided, right?
Second, if we accept code, it either needs to be covered under a CLA
(or, in the case of minor patches, be covered by the definition of a
Contribution in the Apache License, Version 2.0), or we need a
separate license. Perhaps we could consider treating the statement
posted on the IETF site as such.
Since we have actual lawyers engaged (ones who are reportedly not
amused), how about inquiring as to whether such a course of action
would, in fact, tickle their fancy?
If so, we can proceed to determine what ASF policy adjustments would
be required to enable this, and decide whether or not we were
comfortable with such. I, for example, am currently uncomfortable
with the thoughts of us modifying such code (under what license would
we use for such modifications?) and specifically uncomfortable about
removing licensing statements.
- Sam Ruby