"Greg Hudson via RT" <rt@krbdev.mit.edu> writes:

> I think "free distribution and use" was intended to mean (approximately) "you
> can freely use and distribute the software" and not "you can distribute the
> software if you don't charge for it".

Thanks.  I didn't realize that. The text as it stands is uncomfortable.

> I see that Gladman's current AES code has a license starting with reworded
> text:
>
>> The redistribution and use of this software (with or without changes)
> is allowed without the payment of fees or royalties provided that:
>
> which I guess could still be said to have unclear applicability of "without the
> payment or fees or royalties". But maybe it's a bit clearer. I can look into
> updating the code and license.

That's vastly clearer, or at least aligned with normal language.   If
you are able to get the language updated (I know that can be hard), that
would be great.

> MIT krb5 can be compiled with the OpenSSL crypto back-end if you want to avoid
> building the Gladman AES code. I believe Fedora does this, so it's pretty well
> exercised.

I don't have any desire to depart from upstream defaults.  I just
updated from 1.18 to 1.18.2 and ran our lint program which told me that
we don't set a license tag, so I read it, and then my head hurt.


As an aside, if there were some consolidation of licensing, or at least
a summary in NOTICE of the license flavors, that would help people to
more rapidly understand that this qualifies overall as non-copyleft Free
Software, that is some blend of X11 license, 3-clause BSD, 4-clause BSD,
and others that are similar enough  that if you are ok with those three,
you won't mind.  At least that was my sense from a too-quick read.

Thanks,
Greg