[ntp:hackers] renamed: Whether NTP should or should not use third party copyrighted software...

[todd glassey]

Ahahahahah - oh g*d - I haven't laughed that hard in months... Vixie you are
funny.  But for a fat boy, I have a long reach and this is my return ... its
a, well its a subwarp return spike with my meaty arm slamming it across
the net.

---
Sorry Paul - this 3 paragraph masterpiece is a simple periodic use grant and
a poor one at that. I would label it as Garbage, useless, funny... are you
getting my point. If for no other reason than the right to use can be
revoked by the ISC at any time and that's that. The relying party is
screwed. Done - end of story.

Why you say? because the ISC's release is not of an enduring nature. It has
a defined terminus by the simple fact that there is no statement as to its
assignments being enduring. They are intended to end at some point... Its a
common mistake done when Technical People don't solicit legal advice in
their contracts IMHO...

So the release has ho enduring qualities and no derivative rights assigned
through it either... nice.

Bluntly,  you would have to be an idiot to rely on that and nothing you have
said herein has invalidated any of my commentary.

read on...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Vixie" <paul at vix.com>
To: <hackers at ntp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [ntp:hackers] NTP 4.2.3p7 Released


> > > Todd Glassey raised the issue. I didn't include his message because he
> > > marked it private. He said the "new" I/O library was ISC and that it
> > > could come with strings.
> >
> > It does  - its copyrighted and the ISC's release MUST travel with it,
>
> yes.
>
> > and in anything that is packaged with it.
>
> no.
>
> > That means that this RELEASE ITSELF MUST be provided in hardcopy form to
the
> > end user to be compliant to the license.
>
> no.

yeah actually it does Paul and this is one of the things that cracks me up
about technology people when they try to claim they understand the
requirements of the law.

--- SNIP ---
>
> /*
>  * Copyright (c) 2004 by Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. ("ISC")
>  * Copyright (c) 1995-1999 by Internet Software Consortium
>  *
>  * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
>  * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
>  * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
>  *
>  * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND ISC DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
>  * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
>  * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS.  IN NO EVENT SHALL ISC BE LIABLE FOR
>  * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
>  * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
>  * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT
>  * OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
>  */
>
> > And since its a
> > copyrighted document and IP, its use comes with terms and conditions.
>
> because a long time ago a lawyer assured me that if i wanted to give
> something away i had to first claim ownership of it.  see above,
carefully.

So Paul - let me ask this now... are you telling me that you never really
have had this release and its possible imperfections analyzed by a lawyer?
someone skilled in IP licensing agreements?

Hey for example - have you seen the Use License on say the FLASH Player for
Internet Explorer or Mozilla? - This is a third party software library that
provides some set of predefined functionalities... how is it that the FLASH
license for a simple player lib is four or five pages of really small type
and you only need three paragraphs???

By the way Dr. David - I want to rub this in again a bit... Sir - did  you
notice that the ISC can revoke this license to use the code at any time with
no recourse for the relying party? - notice the exclusionary language for
TORTIOUS ACTIONS that in particular would mean any TI's (thats Tortious
Interference) that the ISC did by say withdrawing the license would be
unprosecutable...and that also means that under California Contract law as
far as I know the ultimate relying party - the end-user customer MUST get
disclosure of the ISC's TI exclusions etc...right Paul?

>
> > The
> > idea is whether it makes sense from a legal standpoint to build a second
set
> > of legal requirements into those already existing with NTP and release
> > management issues those create for NTP just so that the ISC has more
> > justification for existing.
>
> there is nothing viral about ISC's licensing.

yeah... well so we will agree to disagree. It is exactly viral, reto-viral
to be exact... and I might also add somewhat analogous to HIV too.

> if you cannot read the above
> statement then you might not be able to read this paragraph either, but i
> will try to boil it down for you.  the thing you cannot do with a source
> file containing an ISC license is: "remove the copyright statement and
then
> publish that modified version."

Actually Paul, no offense but  that is YOUR personal interpretation of the
meaning of the language of the release. The problem is that the language of
the release itself is sloppy enough that anyone could come up with any
number of interpretations of the meaning and intent of the authors... I
don't
see anything anywhere to refute the earlier claim I made... likewise, the
one you made is valid too - so which one is the right one? see my point?
Releases are to be detailed and simple in form.

>
> > Lets ask NIST if they plan on using the ISC's libraries on their
Stratum-1
> > Systems - I would be interested to hear Judah's response on this.
>
> i would like to hear from anyone who knows of a less restrictive license
> than ISC's.

Paul - aggggggghhhhhhh - pllllleease STOP - NO MORE SMOKE SCREENS... The
content of the license is irrelevant... really, what has the ISC's license
got to do with the decision as to whether it makes sense to have any
third-party beneficiary/licenses in the NTP code tree or not???

If we accept the ISC's sublicense into the tree it will have numerous legal
and functional effects whether the technologists of this consortia see that
or not... The addition of more licensed code inside of NTP means that Mills
is also out of the control seat... he alone is not the sole licensor of NTP
any longer... and that act would make then three individual copyrights all
controlled by the ISC's copyright.

The ISC's core copyright and continuing use license would then be a critical
and legally mandated requirement of NTP, which again means David would be
giving up the control over NTP. The ISC would IMHO control it both by
hosting it and then by having the key sublicensed component to it.

>
> > ---
> >
> > By the way - as I have noted several times, Source Forge or one of those
> > sites could easily source the code so the issues of whether the ISC is
> > providing a critically irreplaceable service are void and not relevant.
>
> ISC is happy to serve the community, or not, as requested.

My point exactly - if NTP is large enough for a hosting service, why not the
largest??? why not get it the exposure that hosting with the industry leader
could bring...

This isn't about technology - its a business decision.

>
> > The KEY issue is whether it makes sense to encumber the already nebulous
> > copyrights of NTP based on the tweaks done to it here and there,  with
> > another set of IP licenses, which could constrain other parts of the IP.
>
> that's FUD.  see above.

Sorry Paul the only FUD around here is the smoke screen around various
individuals trying to expand the ISC's reach... and doing so by embedding
its copyrights in such quintessential software as NTP.  Software, oddly
enough, already controlled by other copyrights.


Todd

> _______________________________________________
> hackers mailing list
> hackers at support.ntp.org
> https://support.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers