[ntp:questions] poll interval - RFC compliance question
unruh-spam at physics.ubc.ca
Mon Jun 16 16:01:50 UTC 2008
David Woolley <david at ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes:
>> 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.
Mills claimed that the license has been the same for 10 years now.
>>> 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