[ntp:hackers] Cool new stuff
paul at vix.com
Sun Jul 23 16:47:27 UTC 2006
dr. mills, you wrote:
> Read my lips very carefully.
i promise that i have tried, am trying, and will try.
> I have said nothing about licensing. I don't care about licensing.
i think you're wrong. see below.
> All I care about is the IBM lawyer who showed up in my office demanding I
> sign a release specific to IBM and I would not do that.
if you license your property (which is the code, not the license; see below)
in a way that does not require a release, then nobody will ask you for one.
> If Sun and HP and IBM and everybody else on the planet can guarantee
> hassle-free use of any code, then I and UDel have no problem with that.
now it's your turn, read my lips. isc's code, which it owns, is licensed
under terms that Sun and HP and IBM and everybody else on the planet can
make (and is making) hassle-free use of.
> There is no question about ownership here and I really would like to spare
> further discussion on that issue.
i will stop discussing it, except to note that only the owner of property can
license its use to others. if you wanted isc's code to be available as part
of NTP under a different license then isc would gift you a copy of the code
without any license and then you could put on it whatever license you wanted.
however, i now see that you're merely confused about the legalities of
intellectual property and the ownership and licensing thereof, and i now
suspect that our entire disagreement on this matter is due to that confusion.
> You will note the copyright page says nogthing about licensing, only
a copyright is a license. a license about copying, under certain conditions.
> How about the IBM lawyer? How about the embedded products like my Xerox
> printer and Symmetricom GPS servers? If none of these guys has any problem,
> then I and UDel don't either.
ok, then once and for all time, let it be said that UDel's ntp release can
contain any intellectual property which is not copyrighted under terms more
restrictive than the copyright statement UDel itself uses, as long as the
submitter can vouch for their own ownership of their code contribution.
so, UDel NTP can include copies of any part of BSD, or any BSD-copyrighted
work such as apache, BIND, et al; or any BSD-similar work such as MIT X11,
MIT Kerberos, et al. UDel NTP will never be able to include any GPL'd code,
nor code whose contributor does not have the right to give under UDel's
favoured terms, nor code with any copyright statement not previously known
to be acceptable to Sun, HP, IBM, and other similar vendors whose lawyers
might otherwise come calling.
we can, i know now, all live with that. what this means in practice is that
we will all feel free to incorporate or use any BSD-copyrighted code in NTP,
and that we will all feel free to stop talking about it, even if you mention
it again as you did at the top of this thread. this topic is now "dead" and
the result is "UDel NTP can include anything that has a BSD-style copyright."
> Finally, note I and UDel don't own anything, just the copyright notice
> asserting authorship of various parties.
you are just wrong on this point, but that doesn't matter any more. it's
enough for the world that you understand Time; there is no loss to anybody
if you are not also an expert on the legal nature of intellectual property.
More information about the hackers