Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 09:12:25 +0200 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPFilter not free software? Message-ID: <20010525091225.C94861@lpt.ens.fr> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010525005922.04754280@localhost>; from brett@lariat.org on Fri, May 25, 2001 at 01:00:04AM -0600 References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010524053451.0443c350@localhost> <20010524122010.C52234@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010524053451.0443c350@localhost> <20010524144947.I52234@lpt.ens.fr> <4.3.2.7.2.20010525005922.04754280@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass said on May 25, 2001 at 01:00:04: > >This confirms my impression that when you read something, you think it > >means whatever you want it to mean. He didn't give consent for > >modification, only for redistribution. > > He said that he was granting permission for "use" in source form. One > of the uses of source is to create derivative works. Maybe Theo de Raadt will use that argument, if things get nasty. But it's not at all an obvious interpretation, and it's quite clearly not the author's intention. To quote from his mail, http://false.net/ipfilter/2001_05/0332.html There is no change. It's always been that way - from day 0 - so there is no going back to an older version which has a different licence. The licence has only ever granted right to redistribute/use, not modify. The only difference is those two lines make explicit what was only implied before. As it points out, it is explaining what the prior sentence means, not adding any new meaning. - Rahul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010525091225.C94861>