Date: Sun, 8 Mar 1998 21:48:40 -0600 From: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@americantv.com> To: Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Someone needs to re-develop "Softupdates" Message-ID: <19980308214840.62378@right.PCS> In-Reply-To: <19980308191111.08309@mcs.net>; from Karl Denninger on Mar 03, 1998 at 07:11:11PM -0600 References: <19980308191111.08309@mcs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 03, 1998 at 07:11:11PM -0600, Karl Denninger wrote: > I just read Julian's page. > > What is in the Copyright file, and how Kirk "interprets" it, are two > completely different things. Uh. I just read the copyrights, as well as the email on Julian's web site. Remember that what is binding is the copyright attached to the code, not what some email message says. That out of the way, it seems fairly clear (to me, at least) that the only difference from a standard BSD license is point #4. This only states that any _redistributions_ must include both the source for softupdates, and the source for "the software that uses this software". (read: the kernel itself). So, if either 1) you don't redistribute the software, or 2) you include your entire kernel sources, the clause doesn't affect you. This would affect Sun/BSDI/Whistle (binary licensees only), but not Karl, unless he's selling turnkey systems with custom kernel code that he doesn't want to provide source for. > According to Kirk, if someone wants to use it in a "Production ISP System" > (to cite one of his examples) they need to negotiate a license from him. The copyright does not say that. The copyright is what carries the legal weight, not Kirk's email message, (which I think you are misinterpreting, I believe he was referring to something like BSDI). Can we move on now? -- Jonathan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980308214840.62378>