[ntp:hackers] Cool new stuff

David L. Mills mills at udel.edu
Mon Jul 24 04:25:48 UTC 2006


Kurt,

I must come clean and unbundle my soul. I'm very much afraid that ISC 
(or another party) might sneak some piece of code or library that will 
restrict the ability to distributed the code freely and to any party and 
for any purpose. And then discover that NTP will not run without that 
piece of code or library and it would be impractical to backtrack. I'm 
not going to assign the copyright to anybody else. I'm not going to 
change the copyright statement unless there is a clear need to do so, 
and I don't see the need now or in future.

My college girlfriend dumped me and married a patent attorney who wrote 
an 800-page book on licensing. Now I see why.

Dave

Kurt Roeckx wrote:

> Let's start by saying that I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal
> advice. If you want that, I suggest you talk to one.
>
> On Sun, Jul 23, 2006 at 04:47:27PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote:
>
>> i will stop discussing it, except to note that only the owner of 
>> property can
>> license its use to others.
>
>
> I believe that would be the "copyright holder".
>
>> 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.
>
>
> This is a little confusing. You can basicly do a few things:
> - ISC, as copyright holder, could put it under a different
> license.
> - ISC could transfer the copyright, and then he can put
> any license on it that he wants.
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Please don't use the term "intellectual property". This causes
> more confusion that needed. This covers lots of things that have
> don't have much to do with each other like copyright,
> patents and trademarks.
>
> But I do agree that there is alot of confusion about it.
>
>>> You will note the copyright page says nogthing about licensing, only
>>> copyright.
>>
>> a copyright is a license. a license about copying, under certain 
>> conditions.
>
>
> It has 2 parts:
> * Copyright (c) David L. Mills 1992-2006
>
> This is the copyright statement. It says who's the copyright holder.
> There are actually other people mentioned in the same file, they
> also own part of the copyright.
>
> Then there is:
> * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and *
> * its documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby *
> * granted, provided that the above copyright notice appears in all *
> * copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission *
> * notice appear in supporting documentation, and that the name *
> * University of Delaware not be used in advertising or publicity *
> * pertaining to distribution of the software without specific, *
> * written prior permission. The University of Delaware makes no *
> * representations about the suitability this software for any *
> * purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied *
> * warranty.
>
> That is a license. This license grants me certain rights
> like the right to use, copy, modify and distribute, as
> long as I comply with the rest of the license.
>
> Copyright and license are not the same thing, it's just
> that they ussually follow each other in case of free/open
> software.
>
>>> 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."
>
>
> As part of Debian, we have look at all the copyright
> statements and licenses in the source code. As a result,
> there are some things we currently can't distribute
> because of a lack of license.
>
> The rest of it mostly seem to be 3 clause BSD-style
> licenses, and 4 clause BSD licenses, the ISC license, and
> combinations of those. Those are no problem at all.
>
> There is also some code (left) that is GPL, but it's not
> linked with the rest.
>
>
> Kurt
>



More information about the hackers mailing list