[ntp:hackers] Cool new stuff
kurt at roeckx.be
Sun Jul 23 19:01:15 UTC 2006
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
- 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 *
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
> > 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.
More information about the hackers