[ntp:questions] poll interval - RFC compliance question

David Woolley david at ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid
Sun Jun 15 15:34:23 UTC 2008


Unruh wrote:
> David Woolley <david at ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes:
> 
> To quote the license
> * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and   *
> * its documentation for any purpose with or without fee is hereby     *
> * granted
> 
> I find it hard to develope a legal theory which makes this restrictive. 

It has already been established that the licence has changed since 
OpenBSD made their objections, so they were not objecting to the exact 
licence from which you are quoting.

> 
>> Licence:  David J Woolley grants permission for all acts covered by 
>> copyright law which contributors to a USENET newsroup gatewayed to a 
>> public mailing list would normally expect to be permitted.
> 
> Yee gads. That would be terrible. It would create a legal morass in trying
> to define "normally expect to be permitted" Normal for whom, expect by

But that is exactly what one is doing by posting to USENET without an 
explicit licence.  I was simply trying to state the implied licence, 
which is very subjective.




More information about the questions mailing list