[ntp:hackers] Cool new stuff

David L. Mills mills at udel.edu
Mon Jul 24 04:03:02 UTC 2006


Your inference that my fuse blows is correct. The copyright notice has 
been in the distribution with one word change since 1984. I don't 
anticipate any change necessary due to ISC involvment or any other 
contributed code. If you guys do something that changes the intent of 
the copyright notice or restricts the distribution in any way, I will be 
very, very angry.


Paul Vixie wrote:

> 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
>> copyright.
> 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.
> paul

More information about the hackers mailing list