[ntp:hackers] NTP 4.2.3p7 Released

David L. Mills mills at udel.edu
Thu Jun 22 02:56:43 UTC 2006


Greg,

You misinterpret my salty prose; we are among friends. The copyright 
notice says you get to use the distribution in any way and for any 
purpose; the only thing asked for is a tiny notice under the hood that 
says some portion of the software used in the product originated at UDel.

My message was intended to say all that works whether or not I like or 
dislike, approve or disapprove, judge or not judge or in any way have 
any influence whatsoever on your use or purpose with the stuff. I did 
not in any way interpret that as stealing, even less "ripping off" in 
the perjortive dialect sometimes used. What I really intended was (ahem) 
"zipping off". We can do that, too.

Dave

Greg Dowd wrote:

> I have to take exception with your statement that we (commercial
> enterprises) have "ripped off the code", with or without your blessing.
> If you consider the use of your code to be stealing, then Todd may
> actually have a point. Personally, I can't remember a single instance
> of trying to contribute that hasn't been squashed, dismissed, denigrated
> or simply ignored. I'm perfectly happy to touch the hot stove but I do
> learn. I've offered hardware, software, device drivers and support but
> I don't consider them requirements to use the code. My only requirement
> is to include the copyright statement as I understand it. Perhaps you
> can clarify what you expect in return for the use of "your" code?
>
>
> Greg Dowd
> gdowd at symmetricom dot com (antispam format)
> Symmetricom, Inc.
> www.symmetricom.com
> "The current implementation is non-obvious and may need to be improved."
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hackers-bounces at support.ntp.org
> [mailto:hackers-bounces at support.ntp.org] On Behalf Of David L. Mills
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 6:38 PM
> To: hackers at ntp.org
> Subject: Re: [ntp:hackers] NTP 4.2.3p7 Released
>
> Todd,
>
> NIST uses an older version of NTPv4 and has modified it in very minor
> ways. It probably does not have the most recent code. USNO does have
> more recent code, as it has Autokey, but maybe not the most recent code
> with the library in question.
>
> In cases of NIST and USNO and all the ships at sea, is this a purple
> herring? If folks just build and install it, there is no legal issue. My
> concern are the rather large number of embedded systems that have more
> or less ripped off the code with my (our) blessing.
>
> Dave
>
> todd glassey wrote:
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "David L. Mills" <mills at udel.edu>
>> Cc: <hackers at ntp.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ntp:hackers] NTP 4.2.3p7 Released
>>
>>
>>> Harlan,
>>>
>>> It's really hard to answer inline; I have to convert everything to
>>> fixed-width, then fight with the font when I insert a comment.
>>>
>>> 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,
>> and in anything that is packaged with it. That means that this RELEASE
>
>
>> ITSELF MUST be provided in hardcopy form to the end user to be
>> compliant to the license.
>>
>>> I have no way to verify that except to invite comment.
>>>
>> So David - we got that the ISC's Event Lib and its I/O processing lib
>> *(are they the same thing Paul?) are copyrighted IP's. And since its a
>
>
>> copyrighted document and IP, its use comes with terms and conditions.
>> 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 ithose create for NTP just so that the
>> ISC has more justification for existing.
>>
>> 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.
>
>> ---
>>
>> 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 unreplaceable service are void and not
>
> relevant.
>
>> 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.
>
>>> My comment about the bind consortium may be missplaced. I understood
>>> that if you want the latest bind, you have to join the consortium and
>>
>
>>> cross palms with silver. I'd like to keep the cutting edge of NTP
>>> free and open. There is of course always the danger that somebody
>>> will take some snapshot, "enhance" it and sell it. That would make
>>> two bugstreams and make it really hard to avoid glitches, but it
>>
> would be legal.
>
>>> As for the event library, I recall it was you. We talked on the phone
>>
>
>>> and you said there might be strings. As for the one-word, have you
>>> looked at the (real) copyright page recently?
>>>
>>> By the way, I would like to avoid any gloss of the copyright page
>>> except the original HTML. An acceptable compromise might be to
>>> include in such gloss a prominant statement that the gloss is not
>>> authoritative and only the original can be considered accurate for
>>
> legal purpose.
>
>>> I conclude from your message that my fears are unfounded and the
>>> embedded NTP code in my EndRun CDMA receiver is legal.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>> Harlan Stenn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dave,
>>>>
>>>> Should you and I take this discussion off-list?
>>>>
>>>>> I am told the I/O library included in the latest distribution may
>>>>> not
>>>>
>> be
>>
>>>>> freely available for derived works, as for example in several
>>>>> products now on the market.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who told you, and exactly what I/O library are y'all talking about?
>>>>
>>>> I am not aware of anything in the base NTP code that has any
>>>> restrictions in this regard.
>>>>
>>>>> My intent has always been that the entire distribution is available
>>>>
>
>>>>> free of charge and free of restrictions on derived works. I
>>>>> violently object if NTP turns into something like the gated or bind
>>>>
>
>>>>> consortium.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is the last sentence above subsequent or consequent to the previous
>>>> sentences I qouted from you?
>>>>
>>>> If consequent, would you please explain better?
>>>>
>>>> I understand completely what you mean about gated, but what do you
>>>> mean about a 'bind consortium' and what, exactly, are your
>>>
>> concerns/objections?
>>
>>>>> I assume the terms and conditions of any library, package or addon
>>>>> that appears in the distribution conform in spirit to the blanket
>>>>> copyright notics. If this is not the case, hold the train.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I believe you and I are in agreement there.
>>>>
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> This issue came up with the ISC event library and, when it was
>>>>
>> explained
>>
>>>>> to me, I elected not to use that. I hope this is not the case with
>>>>> the I/O library.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From what I can see, the ISC event library is covered by a copyright
>>>
>
>>>> agreement that is *better* than the NTP copyright (they already made
>>>
>
>>>> the one-word clarification change you and I have discussed), so what
>>>
>
>>>> is (or
>>>> was) the problem there?
>>>>
>>>> Who explained "it" to you?
>>>>
>>>> As we are about to convert to the ISC event library, it would be
>>>> good for you and me to have a clear understanding and agreement of
>>>> this point.
>>>>
>>>> H
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> hackers mailing list
>>> hackers at support.ntp.org
>>> https://support.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> hackers mailing list
> hackers at support.ntp.org
> https://support.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/hackers
>
>



More information about the hackers mailing list