From: Henrik Sundberg (storangen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-09-02 15:59:27
On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Bram Neijt <bneijt_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> That should be ok then. The RFC states:
> """The MD5 algorithm is being placed in the public domain
> for review and possible adoption as a standard.""""
> So there should be no problem then. I had problems with the code I used
> was to much of a "derived work", which ment:
> """License is also granted to make and use derivative works provided
> that such works are identified as "derived from the RSA Data Security,
> Inc. MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm" in all material mentioning or
> referencing the derived work."""
> I'm no lawyer but I think you are in the clear then :D
> On Tue, 2008-09-02 at 04:42 -0400, Daryle Walker wrote:
>> I didn't take the implementation from any of the MD5 sources lying
>> around, I did a "clean room" build from the RFC's description.
>> (They're all byte-wise, while mine is bit-wise [the only one,
>> AFAIK].) I did use the RFC's sample code to get the values of the
>> various constants. Do I need to have some sort of licensing with the
>> RFC board; aren't they free for all?
I think you made a mistake by using the sample code.
I don't think the Boost license can accept the "derived from the RSA
Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message-Digest Algorithm" requirement.
I.e. the algorithm is completely free, but the sample code is not.
No lawyer either...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk