[ntp:questions] A faster settling NTP
unruh at wormhole.physics.ubc.ca
Wed Dec 30 18:14:36 UTC 2009
On 2009-12-27, Danny Mayer <mayer at ntp.org> wrote:
> unruh wrote:
>> The problem with the current ntpd
>> "license" is that it is a combination of a copyright claim, and a
>> license. Thus the writers cannot simply state that they are using the
>> general license, since it also makes a copyright claim. (It also
>> confusingly refers to the U Delaware when the copyright holder is D
> Dave Mills transferred the license and copyright and ownership to
> University of Delaware some time ago. The notice reflects that transfer.
The notice in 4.2.4p4, which is the version I have, says that David Mills owns the
Copyright (c) David L. Mills 1992-2007
Looking at the Developement branch, the copyright notice now says that U
Delaware owns the copyright, as you say, and lists a series of authors of the work.
This document is still confusing since it is still a combination of
copyright claim and license. Another author cannot use it, since he owns
the copyright to his own work, not the U Delaware, unless he transfers
his copyright to the U Delaware. Such a transfer cannot be implicit, and
it certainly cannot be claimed that this license and copyright ownership
applies simply because the
authors removed all copyright and license text from their contribution.
While the chances of those authors making a copyright claim against a
big user are slim, a big company has to protect itself (the "big
pockets" theory of US law suits make them easy targets).
I guess if one of the authors did sue the big company, it could turn
around and sue U Delaware for falsely stating it owned the copyright and
claiming it had the right to issue a license.
More information about the questions