[ntp:hackers] NTP 4.2.3p7 Released
David L. Mills
mills at udel.edu
Thu Jun 22 17:49:36 UTC 2006
I hear you; I've been a consultant on a number of patent cases and have
some experience in the wicked ways of patent warfare.
The bottom line that bothers me is that ISC and I both claim the same
intent but have far different wordings. I scarfed my copyright statement
from the MIT Athena project, but changed one word on advice.
I conclude it's not the issue of use with or without restrictions, it's
the claim of stakeholder. I want to be sure UDel is acknowledged as the
representative and copyright holder for the authors listed on the
copyright page for most of the software. ISC wants to be acknowledged as
the author of some of the software, both in some fraction. So, what the
copyright statement(s) really says is use the stuff in any way you want,
but be sure to acknowlege UDel/ISC as authors.
Brian Utterback wrote:
> Resending, since I didn't see it show up on the list.
> Danny Mayer wrote:
>> There has been ISC code that I introduced in the distribution for at
>> least two years and we discussed this at the time. There are no
>> restrictions on either distribution or usage except for their copyright
>> statement in the used files. You had no objection at the time. I also
>> contacted Paul at ISC and made sure that it was within the letter and
>> spirit of the ISC copyright and he told me to go right ahead. Nothing
>> has changed since then. The only code that has been added in the I/O
>> space has been the dynamic IP address code that Frank wrote specifically
>> for NTP and has nothing to do with ISC and ISC is not responsible for
>> it. If you can point to a specific file that you think does not conform
>> we can discuss it further otherwise it's a non-issue and nothing in the
>> distribution violates the terms or spirit that you have laid down in
>> your blanket copyright notice.
>> The ISC Eventlib has the same terms as the code we have already been
>> using since 4.2.0 came out and I don't recall you saying not to use it
>> since it certainly is free and unemcumbered as Paul told you. There may
>> be other reasons not to use it, but this is not one of them.
> I think we have a difference between points of view. Most of us view
> the project as would a group of friends. When we don't understand what
> one of the licenses is saying, we ask. As Paul has explained, when
> there has been any real conflicts in his experience, they are resolved
> by either one or the other parties just giving the item in question to
> the other. This is the "after you, no, after you, I'll get the check
> this time" mentality. All in all, a nice way to live.
> Todd is looking at it all from the "Real world", business, "agreements
> between strangers", point of view. In his world, you don't ask the
> license author for clarifications about what was meant, you ask a
> lawyer for clarifications about what is written. So, when Paul says
> "go ahead, I meant it to be free", but a lawyer says "under Ca. law,
> this license could be canceled at any time, making your product subject
> to an injunction and recall.", is it any wonder that Todd is concerned?
> The world that Todd is living in may not be as nice, but it isn't any
> less real. I often question whether or not NTP really needs to be
> concerned with these issues, but I have no way of knowing, and so
> cannot dismiss them out of hand.
> Witness Sun's own contribution to the open source licensing world,
> the CDDL. It tries very hard to walk that delicate line of enforcing
> openness, while allowing capitalization. It deals with patents,
> while most previous licenses do not. This is because the world of IP
> today has discovered patents can be used as a cudgel, and we wanted to
> prevent that. As more IP weapons are discovered, more IP defenses are
> required in the licenses. I know we all wish (including Todd I presume)
> that this wasn't the case, but it is the reality.
> But please, can we try to keep this all on an even keel and civilized?
> These are issues that we may or may not need to deal with, but they
> are real issues.
More information about the hackers