Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 01:45:15 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass) Cc: jkh@zippy.cdrom.com, drosih@rpi.edu, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Apple's open source... Message-ID: <199903180145.SAA26695@usr01.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990317162855.03e94b60@localhost> from "Brett Glass" at Mar 17, 99 04:32:48 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >If Apple actually contributes code back, I won't actually care so > >much what their PR dept. does or does not acknowledge. It would be > >*very nice* to get public acknowledgement, don't get me wrong, but > >there are all kinds of "technology partners" out there and the ones > >who contribute technical assistance (bug fixes, reports, etc) are > >just as valuable in their own way. > > Does the Apple license allow the FreeBSD Project to use what's > contributed by third parties? As I read it, only the authors > and Apple can use the changes, and Apple can't contribute > other people's changes to the BSDs -- only its own. In > short, the contributors to Apple's code have to be asked if > they will ALSO contribute to the BSDs. (I don't see why they > wouldn't, though.) It depends upon the aggregate license of the file being modified. The answer is, as in the Sun and USL cases, that merely plunking an agregate license statement does not hold you to terms stricter than the original license, unless you make functional modifications. The cites for this are the FTP software use of SCO "unplublished, proprietary" header files for their TCP/IP implementation on SCO Xenix, prior to TCP/IP being a part of the base OS. Now, it's interesting to note that the requirement for the license to be acknowledged before download *may* constitute a "shrinkwrap" license. If you agree to the terms of the license, you agree that any file labelled with their agregate license is covered by the license. I believe that this is irrespective of the lack of functional modifications, since you are given "value", in the form of the code that did not come from FreeBSD (or NetBSD or whatever) in exchange for your agreement. The actual hope that should be held out is that they will revise their license, as they have reserved the right to do, to ensure that they get copies of any modifications, but that you aren't required to distribute them to anyone else *but* them. The patent licenses can remain intact (though they will stick in the craw of many companies, I fear). The issue of the claim credit clause (more accurate than the Stallman characterization of "advertising clause" -- one wonders if he is "anti-choice or anti-life"; aren't Aristotilian means and binary absolutes wonderful tools for beating people over the head?) is one of whether they trigger it by specifically mentioning features or use of particular software covered by the clause in their advertising. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903180145.SAA26695>