On Sat, 30 May 1998 09:30:06 -0400 (EDT) 
 der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA> wrote:

 > How do we (eg, me) get this to happen?  Based on my reading of the
 > license terms, the MD5 code in libc is sufficiently encumbered that
 > anyone who has ever used it even once is required, whenever mentioning
 > it in any context, to note that it is "derived from the RSA Data
 > Security, Inc. MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm".  I consider this

You can reference the algorithm without referencing the actual implementation
of that algorithm.  Read the license carefully...  It does not require that
software which uses it be identified in such a manner, but it is saying that
you can't call this _specific_ implementation the Joe Blow MD5 Function.

 > completely outrageous and can't understand why it got into the tree,
 > especially so soon after the cgd license flap (which blew up over
 > functionally similar license terms).  I consider it especially

No, that is incorrect.  The particular clause that killed that one required
any software which included software (but did not necessarily mention features
or use of that particular implementation) with that license to mention the
`credit clause'.  There is a very big difference between the two.

 > According to my reading of the license.  That's why I'd like to hear a
 > real legal opinion on the matter...which is where I came in.

So why didn't you actually get a legal opinion before flaming on this
list for no particularly good reason?

Jason R. Thorpe                                       thorpej@nas.nasa.gov
NASA Ames Research Center                            Home: +1 408 866 1912
NAS: M/S 258-5                                       Work: +1 650 604 0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035                             Pager: +1 650 428 6939