[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