[ntp:questions] poll interval - RFC compliance question

David L. Mills mills at udel.edu
Sun Jun 15 18:19:11 UTC 2008


I have resisted to the point of anal retention any changes to the 
copyright/license statement on the basis that it might compromise prior 
use and interpretation over the last twenty years. A few years ago, and 
after much flame and flame retardant, I agreed to change one word on the 
advice this did not change the interpretation, only resolved a possible 
ambiguity. As I said, what you get is what you get. I have referred the 
issue to our campus legal department.


David Woolley wrote:
>> *                                                                     *
>> * 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