-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 24 Mar 1999, Roderick Schertler wrote:
> Date: 24 Mar 1999 12:29:37 -0500 > From: Roderick Schertler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: gated package > > On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 04:06:05 +0000 (GMT), "Jeremy T. Bouse" <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]> said: > > > > I noticed on the WNPP page that someone had sent in an intent to > > package the GateD routing daemon... > > There's a package of 3.5.8 at debs.fuller.edu that was made by Dermot > Bradley. He'd said it couldn't be part of Debian itself because of > licensing problems, I presume this applied to it being part of non-free > as well but I didn't investigate. > > I used his diff to make a local 3.5.9 package with little effort last > fall. Here's a simple patch I'd applied on top of it. > Hmm... I'm actually working with the 3.5.10 code which version 3 of the code is publically available from their version above 3.5 (4 -> 7) are only available as members of the consortium... The first paragraph in the Copyright file with 3.5.10 reads as: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Copyright (c) 1996, 1997 The Regents of the University of Michigan All Rights Reserved Royalty-free licenses to redistribute GateD Release 3 in whole or in part may be obtained by writing to: Merit GateDaemon Project 4251 Plymouth Road, Suite C Ann Arbor, MI 48105 THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND MERIT DO NOT WARRANT THAT THE FUNCTIONS CONTAINED IN THE SOFTWARE WILL MEET LICENSEE'S REQUIREMENTS OR THAT OPERATION WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR FREE. The Regents of the University of Michigan and Merit shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental or consequential damages with respect to any claim by Licensee or any third party arising from use of the software. GateDaemon was originated and developed through release 3.0 by Cornell University and its collaborators. Please forward bug fixes, enhancements and questions to the gated mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ And then the following is a lil lower in the same file: - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Portions of this software may fall under the following copyrights: Copyright (c) 1988 Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now I am not a lawyer and I haven't sent this to debian-legal yet to get their thoughts but it seems to me as long as we derive the work from 3.5 and not one of the "member only" versions we should have no problem. As it is gated-3.5.10 is actually packaged within RH5.2 which is actually the reason I've though about it as I am working with a client to develop a Linux machines with multiple 10/100 NICs and want'd to use gated with either OSPF or BGP to manage the routing dynamically; however in the process the machine we are testing on is install'd with RH and I hate workin on RH machines so I've been pushin to convert him from the dark side... this one pacakge seems to be what's holding that up.. and I thinkin if I might want/need the package there is a good posibility someone else would... I tried to contact Bradley without response... I'm also trying to get everythin in order to submit as a developer, however currently I don't have my PGP key sign'd by another developer although it is sign'd by a key sign'd by RCW... So I'm jsut tryin to work quietly until I can get everythin I need in order... If Bradley feels there are legal issues I would be willing to take it off his plate and deal with them, but havin not been able to reach a response I'm just trying to decide a way to proceed... I didn't even know he had a debianized source tree on a site till your post... If anyone knows how to get a hold of Bradley and find out if he would like to orphan the package and allow me to take it on I would greatly appreciate it... Respectfully, Jeremy T. Bouse ,-----------------------------------------------------------------------------, |Jeremy T. Bouse - Software Engineer for Netsurfer, Inc. - www.Netsurfer.com | | PGP ID/Fingerprint: 1024/E83D9AE5/4ACC03F098D78198 19D0593E50E597E9 | | Public PGP key available via email at [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] - NIC Whois: JB5713 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Anti-trust laws should be approached with exactly that attitude. | `-----------------------------------------------------------------------------' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3a Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNvlESuak13roPZrlAQGBTQP/Tp8XkIrLRVdmqg3Zfzxy73pdkW9wANfg AE0Mkj0H5GDw1JwTLDZtHKRJducDE4mUzisSNx3AZ3ps/LhFLiAsaGr+8i4N2M6k HtKybs20AeigYkm/kFD8+Kqv2ssBxWPXbYte9rKaVrzS13ZWbUFlyDjAllvMFrM9 GN0du+fgdcI= =opv+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
