[ntp:questions] poll interval - RFC compliance question

Unruh unruh-spam at physics.ubc.ca
Sun Jun 15 15:15:56 UTC 2008

"David L. Mills" <mills at udel.edu> writes:

>David, Anton,

>As I have reminded folks many, many times, please read the copyright 
>statement in the distribution. Note very carefully that there is no 
>license, only a copyright statement that clearly specifies no fee, no 
>restictions on use other than including the copyright statement itself 
>in derived products.

A license is a legal statement about giving permission to copy the program.
If there were really no license, noone else would have the right to copy
the program. You give them that right. That is a license. 

It is a slightly bizarre one, since the copyright is claimed to owned by
you, and you put in a term saying that the University of Deleware name is
not to be used. Can I ask you to put in that my name is also not to be used
in any advertising? :-). (In the case of Project Athena I suspect that the
copyright is actually owned by MIT while in this case it is owned by you.)

>Except for one minor word change, the copyright statement is identical 
>to the one used by MIT in Project Athena and has not chenged since 1988.

>Be advised, lawyers have already stalked me about restictive licenses; I 
>threw the one from IBM, who showed up unannounced, right back out the door.


>David Woolley wrote:
>> Anton Persson A wrote:
>>> Is this requirement also valid for ntp v3, I can't quite find it
>>> but I'm unsure? The reason I'm asking is that we have quite
>>> a blood thirsty testing squad here and I need to clarify
>>> if this is a compliance requirement or not.
>> Why aren't you just using the reference implementation code?  The only 
>> issue I'm aware of about the licence is that that OpenBSD claim the 
>> wording means it doesn't meet their free for commercial use requirements 
>> whereas Dave Mills claims that the licence already meets that 
>> requirement, and doesn't need rewording.

I have no idea what the OpenBSD claim means. I would think that "any
purpose with or without fee" is clear enough to cover "commercial use".
What is their legal theory about "any purpose with or without fee" that would
exclude "commercial use".

More information about the questions mailing list