[ntp:questions] poll interval - RFC compliance question
stenn at ntp.org
Sun Jun 15 21:03:41 UTC 2008
>>> In article <4854d32f$0$755$5a6aecb4 at news.aaisp.net.uk>, David Woolley <david at ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes:
David> I'd have to search the archives to work out what the exact OpenBSD
David> objection was.
The original wording was "... and without fee..."
If you look hard enough you will see that it *could* be read different ways.
The potential for the problem would be that a) Dave decides that the 'fee'
means people cannot charge for distributing the code as part of a larger
work instead of 'there is no fee for the license rights', and b) when this
got to a judge the judge decided on the more restrictive reading against the
(unempowered) user instead of deciding that the (empowered) license holder
should be allowed the more restrictive interpretation.
>From what I have heard, judges go for the least restrictive interpretation
in these cases and find for the user, since the 'onus' of accurate
description is on the shoulders of the writer of the agreement.
Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.org>
http://ntpforum.isc.org - be a member!
More information about the questions