[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: No more ports of unfree software



Ugh! This is the "perfect" situation for large corporations. This is so
ambiguous that whenever you use any of this code they can sue you out of
existence. Even if one is competing with an unrelated product and have
ever used this code it could serve as a legal avenue to prosecute. Sort
of the often used "defensive patent" crap. You sue us we sue you back on
something unrelated.

I say pull the code with crap licenses. The last thing we need is
OpenBSD to be sued for something unrelated because someone's feelings
got hurt.

$0.02

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ports@openbsd.org 
> [mailto:owner-ports@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of Ian McWilliam
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 22:43
> To: Jolan Luff
> Cc: Marc Espie; ports@openbsd.org
> Subject: Re: No more ports of unfree software
> 
> 
> On Sun, 25 May 2003, Jolan Luff wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 01:52:48AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> >
> > If this is really going to happen, then these questions, 
> and many more 
> > will need to answered.
> >
> 
> OK I'll confuse the issue even more.
> 
> Take the Netetalk software now being developed on 
> sourceforge. Not the Umich 990130 < versions.
> 
> Distributed within the archive Netatalk-1.6.1.tar.gz is a 
> file called COPYRIGHT. It contains UMICH BSD license, Adrian 
> SUN license, SUN license
> 
> Copyright (c) 1990,1996 Regents of The University of 
> Michigan. All Rights Reserved.
> 
>     Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
>     its documentation for any purpose and without fee is 
> hereby granted,
>     provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
>     that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear
>     in supporting documentation, and that the name of The University
>     of Michigan not be used in advertising or publicity pertaining to
>     distribution of the software without specific, written prior
>     permission. This software is supplied as is without expressed or
>     implied warranties of any kind.
> 
> This product includes software developed by the University of 
> California, Berkeley and its contributors.
> 
> Modifications for Appleshare IP and other files copyrighted 
> by Adrian Sun are under the following copyright:
> 
>     Copyright (c) 1997,1998,1999,2000 Adrian Sun (asun@cobalt.com)
>     All Rights Reserved.
> 
>     Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
>     its documentation for any purpose and without fee is 
> hereby granted,
>     provided that the above copyright notice appears in all copies and
>     that both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear
>     in supporting documentation. This software is supplied as is
>     without expressed or implied warranties of any kind.
> 
> Solaris code is encumbered by the following:
>     Copyright (C) 1996 by Sun Microsystems Computer Co.
> 
>     Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and
>     its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby
>     granted, provided that the above copyright notice appear in all
>     copies and that both that copyright notice and this permission
>     notice appear in supporting documentation.  This software is
>     provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.
> 
> 
> Now the sourceforge site states
> 
> http://netatalk.sourceforge.net/
> 
> It is licensed under the GNU General Public License.
> 
> Now NO GNU Public license ships with the distro. No mention 
> of the GNU License ships with the distro, just on a web page.
> 
> All the files in the package appear to have this an nothing else.
> 
> /*
>  * $Id: main.c,v 1.20 2002/10/04 15:15:05 srittau Exp $
>  *
>  * Copyright (c) 1990,1993 Regents of The University of Michigan.
>  * All Rights Reserved.  See COPYRIGHT.
>  */
> 
> 
> So what code, code changes, are covered by what license?
> 
> Now the Sun license states
> 
> "provided that the above copyright notice appear in all
>  copies and that both that copyright notice and this 
> permission  notice appear in supporting documentation"
> 
> The copyright notice only appears in one file. COPYRIGHT. I 
> does not appear in man pages, or any other "supporting" documenation.
> 
> I suppose what I trying to say is that licensing world wide 
> is completely F^&^%^ed UP.
> 
> There is really no way of knowing which of all of those 
> licenses cover what code, what files, etc, etc, etc.
> 
> Is putting the statement "that it is now covered by the GPL" 
> on an obsecure web page legal enough to cover the software????????
> 
> How does one interperate crap like this?
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Ian McWilliam
> Technical Officer
> School of Computing & IT
> University of Western Sydney.
> 
> "Technician was the lowest rank on this ship. even
> the man who changed the bog roll was higher than us."
> - Dave lister, Red Dwarf.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> Scanned by SCIT E-Mail Gateway http://www.cit.uws.edu.au
> 
>