Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:20:19 -0500 From: dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. Maddox) To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The BSD License Message-ID: <19980129202019.32143@scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <19980130113751.52742@lemis.com>; from Greg Lehey on Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 11:37:51AM %2B1030 References: <19980129190335.64088@scsn.net> <19980130105847.60343@lemis.com> <19980129194229.16307@scsn.net> <19980130111804.13786@lemis.com> <19980129195623.55979@scsn.net> <19980130113751.52742@lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 11:37:51AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 1998 at 07:56:23PM -0500, Donald J. Maddox, masquerading as Charlie Root, wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 30, 1998 at 11:18:04AM +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 29, 1998 at 07:42:29PM -0500, Donald J. Maddox wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks for the reply, Greg... This interpretation is pretty close to > >>> what I got out of it. So, I guess this means if I want to be able to > >>> include STAC compression into FreeBSD, then _they_ have to be willing > >>> to allow STAC to be distributed with no further restrictions than the > >>> above... Is that right? > >> > >> If they want to distribute it under a Berkeley license, yes. Unlike > >> the GPL, there's no obligation to distribute *everything* in a product > >> under this license, however. In the terminology of the GPL opponents, > >> the Berkeley license doens't infect software it touches. > > > > Ok, now you've confused me :-/ Exactly what restrictions are acceptable > > on code distributed with the base system, like ppp? What are some examples > > of what _is not_ acceptable? > > Hmm. As I said, I *certainly* don't speak for the FreeBSD project. > What I understand is: > > 1. Most of the stuff in /usr/src is covered by a Berkeley license. > 2. Stuff in /usr/src/gnu is covered by GPL. > > PPP is mainly covered by a Berkeley-style license (i.e. the conditions > are the same, but it doesn't (always) mention Berkeley). Some of the > modules are in the Public Domain. You can take the code and make your > own product out of it if you want, and you are under no obligation to > put it under the Berkeley license. > > On the other hand, it wouldn't be acceptable to pretend you wrote it > all yourself, nor to hide the fact that the software was derived from > Berkeley-licensed software, nor to distribute it without saying so. > > Particularly this last proviso is a problem. When did you last see > System V.4 software which prominently stated "Derived from software > written by the University of California, Berkeley, and its > contributors"? > > Greg > Ok, at this point, I think I have asked the wrong question. It seems to me that the important question wrt STAC is 'What are licensing terms acceptable to the FreeBSD core team for software included in the base distribution?', not 'What is the meaning and intent of the BSD license?'. Core team members are cordially invited to address this issue, if you will...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980129202019.32143>