[ntp:questions] poll interval - RFC compliance question

David Woolley david at ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid
Sun Jun 15 08:32:52 UTC 2008

> *                                                                     *
> * Copyright (c) David L. Mills 1992-2008                              *

The above is the copyright notice.  Everything else is the licence, so 
rather than not having a licence, all but one line is actually the licence.
> *                                                                     *
> * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and   *

This uses more than the term "use", so your summary was wrong.  It also 
sounds like the licence has heen changed since the OpenBSD objections, 
but anyone trying to implement version 3 (presumably because they have a 
mandate to only implement official standards, although I'm waiting for 
the actual answer on that question), would see the old licence on the 
reference implementation and therefore might not treat it as having new 
style BSD type licence.

I'd have to search the archives to work out what the exact OpenBSD 
objection was.

Note that my statement about use being illegal was rhetorical, based on 
your claim that is didn't have a licence.  You were wrong in saying that 
it didn't have a licence, and I tried to explain that common commercial 
use of "licence agreement" for what is actually a contract limiting 
rights, might be the source of your confusion.

More information about the questions mailing list