Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 00:26:41 +0200 From: "Simon L. Nielsen" <simon@FreeBSD.org> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <underway@comcast.net> Cc: FreeBSD-users-jp@jp.FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Obsolete license terms at the FreeBSD website (Re:[FreeBSD-users-jp 75962]) Message-ID: <20030904222640.GD674@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <41he41od3p.e41@mail.comcast.net> References: <002901c36c93$ee58dfa0$020ba8c0@front> <3F4D8B28.737D6B0C@ht.sakura.ne.jp> <41he41od3p.e41@mail.comcast.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2003.08.28 11:23:38 -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: > IIJIMA Hiromitsu <delmonta@ht.sakura.ne.jp> writes: >=20 > > 1. About GNU LGPL: > > > > GNU Library GPL (LGPL) was renamed to GNU *Lesser* GPL (also abbreviated > > as LGPL), with the reason described at > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html. >=20 > Strictly speaking, it wasn't. From LGPL v.2.1, dated Feb'1999: I don't care to much about what we call it. From a quick grep through the source tree I can see that it is refered to under both names, so I think that when somebody updates the Legal/Copyright page both names should just be used for the appropriate versions. > > | 3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this softwa= re >=20 > > I think that the fact that this clause was deleted should be noted as > > editors' note, with original text kept original, to show the historical > > change. I added the note from src/COPYRIGHT to the BSD license web page a few days ago. > Good idea. Maybe something like this (only slightly facetious): >=20 > This page links to copies of the licenses which are associated with > most parts of FreeBSD. There are other licenses, some with terms > which might be considered more restrictive than the listed licenses. >=20 > Various parts of FreeBSD are copyrighted by various parties. Many > parts are copyrighted by multiple parties. Copyright notices are > usually incomplete. (FreeBSD archives contain much identifying > information, should anyone ever want to investigate ownership.) While it might be true that some copyright statements aren't fully updated, I don't think there is any reason to highlight this. > Those facts mean that users cannot expect to be able to identify > every copyright owner or find the owners' explicit offers to license > their software. Users can only hope that courts would find implied > offers to use the software under the license commonly associated > with the portion of FreeBSD in question. There is some legal risk > involved in the use of most open-source software, including FreeBSD. > Given the unusually generous nature of the most commonly used > licenses in FreeBSD, one could guess that the risk is less with > FreeBSD than some other operating systems. IMHO this seems to be mostly a Linux/SCO comment which I don't think is apropriate for the the FreeBSD website... I think we should be rather careful what we put in the Legal/Copyright page since it is, well, a legal page. I do think that there should be some more real text on the Copyright / Legal page, I'm just not really sure what to write. --=20 Simon L. Nielsen FreeBSD Documentation Team --OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/V7wgh9pcDSc1mlERAk7yAJ9fR1WDbYAa2vLhwt0/RpmdOq4CyQCcCRHF ofIBE+lOxOCDwzt6k3Y0o6Y= =09Di -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OaZoDhBhXzo6bW1J--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030904222640.GD674>