PKCS#11 header license - replacement headers

Alessandro Premoli wrote:
> The new PKCS#11 header *is* a derivative work of the
original RSA 
> interface.

you can't put a license on a printed book - the law is quite
clear
on that. so if someone reads the book "pkcs#11 (the
complete standard,
not the header files)", and notes down the definitions
and lines
he needs, the result is free from any license. we did that.
but I'm
not a lawyer.

> It seems completely useless to me. We should use the
original and 
> official RSA headers.

I'd love to do that. if they change the license and drop
that clause.

Regards, Andreas
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devellists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc
-devel

On 27/11/06, Andreas Jellinghaus <ajdungeon.inka.de> wrote:
> Alessandro Premoli wrote:
> > The new PKCS#11 header *is* a derivative work of
the original RSA
> > interface.
>
> you can't put a license on a printed book - the law is
quite clear
> on that. so if someone reads the book "pkcs#11
(the complete standard,
> not the header files)", and notes down the
definitions and lines
> he needs, the result is free from any license. we did
that. but I'm
> not a lawyer.

Appendix D of the PKCS#11 standard is titled
"Intellectual property
considerations" and contains the paragraph:

  "License to COPY this document is granted provided
that it is
identified as "RSA Security Inc. Public-Key
Cryptography Standards
(PKCS)" in all material mentioning or
referencing this document. "

I don't know who far we must interpret the term
"copy". Is the new .h
file a copy of (part of) the PDF document?

Note that the PKCS#11 API is not distributed from RSA as a
printed
book but as a PDF electronic file.

Maybe we should talk to a (real) lawyer?

Bye,

-- 
  Dr. Ludovic Rousseau
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devellists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc
-devel

Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
>  "License to COPY this document is granted
provided that it is
> identified as "RSA Security Inc. Public-Key
Cryptography Standards
> (PKCS)" in all material mentioning or
> referencing this document. "

so I can print the document (unchanged, so complient to this
license),
and give it to someone else. that person receives a book
from me,
nothing else. no contract or anything binding that person to
me or
rsa labs. no obligation from rsa labs to me to not give
anyone a copy
unless that persons signs a contract or anything like that.

so now that person has a book and no legal obligations other
than
the normal copyright. in can quote. if it copies small
parts, those
will not even be recognized as having any weight in terms of
copyright
and thus won't be protected by copyright at all. and since
the
pkcs#11 standard book is a technical standard, I'm pretty
sure, the 
individual lines defining some structure, function or
constant/define
will be not considered to have any copyright on them.

> I don't know who far we must interpret the term
"copy". Is the new .h
> file a copy of (part of) the PDF document?

even if some part is considered a copy, it is within what is
allowed 
under quotes and excerpts and thus again legal. for a quote
or excerpt
they can demand proper reference, no more.

> Maybe we should talk to a (real) lawyer?

true. I'm not a lawyer. on the other hand I have been
following 
discussions about copyright and all that for > 10 years
no, so I hope 
I'm totally clueless and my feeling tells me what we do is
ok.
also I think werner is also very active with these topics,
read and
heard a lot about it. but still we are no lawyers and might
be 
completely wrong, even if I think the chances for this are
small.

Regards, Andreas
_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devellists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc
-devel

On 29.11.2006, at 1:22, Andreas Jellinghaus wrote:

> also I think werner is also very active with these
topics, read and
> heard a lot about it. but still we are no lawyers and
might be  
> completely wrong, even if I think the chances for this
are small.
>


Why not contact RSA labs directly (or ask the more proper
lawyers)  
and ask them what they think about we using the headers and
if and  
how this could affect us or if they are willing to
co-operate on this  
issue, rather than just let some lawyer analyze the
situation and  
come up with nothing proactive.

I understand that 'there is a possible problem' but I hope
that this  
can be overcome with something more practical (in coders
point of  
view) than a re-write of headers....


m.

-- 
Martin Paljak / martinpaljak.pri.ee
martin.paljak.pri.ee / ideelabor.ee
+372 515 64 95


_______________________________________________
opensc-devel mailing list
opensc-devellists.opensc-project.org
http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc
-devel