My guess would be that some legal division at Bosch demanded that there be such a list of licenses, just to cover Bosch's proverbial ass, not that the list really means anything.
On Jul 12 04:22:15, emu...@disroot.org wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 17:39:27 +0200 > Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > emu...@disroot.org wrote on Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 08:31:34PM +0800: > > > > > I finally got around to filing away the document pack that came > > > with a new Bosch refrigerator. Apparently it has a feature called > > > "Home Connect" which enables it to connect to a mobile phone app > > > via some murky cloud service. > > > > > > Among the documents was the usual "Information regarding Open Source > > > Software" slip. I was quite surprised to find OpenBSD listed as a > > > component. > > > > > > However, the license as published by Bosch looks odd. The first > > > part is (C) 1996 Internet Software Consortium, and looks identical > > > to the license template for new code that is found > > > in /usr/share/misc. > > > > Well, /usr/share/misc/license.template is based on the ISC license, > > and OpenBSD also includes (relatively small) amounts of ISC code, > > so this far, nothing looks strange to me. > > > > > The second part is "Portions Copyright (c) 1995 by International > > > Business Machines, Inc.", and appears to refer to some DNS code. The > > > implication is it's part of OpenBSD. > > > > > > I attach a scan of the relevant page. > > > > You sent less than is needed to fully understand what is going on. > > > > Apparently, the page you sent is part of some kind of a list. > > Apparently, the list consists of list entries, and apparently, > > each list entry consists of a title and one or more licenses. > > > > You did not include the text, probably to be found before the > > beginning of the list, explaining what the titles of the entries > > mean, and what it means when a license is included in an entry. > > > > So we can only guess. For example, it might be that they say before > > the list that each title means that they copied *some* code from > > that source, and the licences below that title mean that the code > > they copied from that source is under these licenses. > > > > If this guess is correct, your fridge is likely *not* running OpenBSD, > > but only includes minor amounts of code that Bosch copied from > > OpenBSD, and that OpenBSD, in turn, got from ISC and IBM. > > > > > > In OpenBSD-current, some code below /usr/src/lib/libc/net/ > > and /usr/src/sys/netinet/ > > is Copyrighted "1996 by Internet Software Consortium". > > I'm too lazy to check whether earlier OpenBSD releases maybe > > contained more code under that Copyright, but it probably isn't > > relevant anyway, because if they copied any code, the amount > > likely doesn't matter. > > > > > Am I right in thinking that the licence is probably outdated or > > > incorrect, > > > > That is impossible to answer with certainty because you do not provide > > enough context. It doesn't seem likely, though. My guess above > > provides one possibility how the listing could be correct. > > There may be other possibilities how it could be correct. > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "outdated". Code distributed with > > OpenBSD is free. The definition of "free" includes that the licenses > > of the code are not time-limited, but valid in perpetuity. So i don't > > understand how, if any code is copied from OpenBSD, the licenses > > could ever become "outdated". > > > > > if it appears to include proprietary code under 'OpenBSD'? > > > > In the entry entitled "OpenBSD", i see nothing talking > > about "proprietary code". Sure, IBM is a for-profit corporation, > > and it certainly owns lots of proprietary code, but if it releases > > some code under a free license, *that* code becomes free code and > > is not proprietary. > > > > Portions of these files in OpenBSD-current are under Copyright > > "1995 by International Business Machines, Inc.": > > > > /usr/src/include/arpa/nameser.h > > /usr/src/lib/libc/net/base64.c > > /usr/src/lib/libc/net/res_debug_syms.c > > > > > Maybe it's just a printer's mistake? > > > > Not enough information to say for sure, but it seems unlikely. > > > > > Perhaps someone on the list in Germany has contacts with Bosch and > > > could clarify matters with them? > > > > I would advise against that, it seems like a waste of time. > > > > OpenBSD explicitly allows reusing of its code by anyone for any > > purpose, even as part of of proprietary software that is sold > > in binary-only form, as long as the license terms are adhered to, > > see https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html for details. > > > > So based on what you have shown so far, i see no indication that > > anything dubious might be going on here. > > > > Yours, > > Ingo > > Apologies for not sending the full document. It is attached to this > message, but doesn't shed much light. That's all there is. As you can > see, several items are listed, with headings. The 'IBM' waiver part does > not have a heading, so it appears to be part of the 'OpenBSD' section. > I was curious about why that might be. > > > If this guess is correct, your fridge is likely *not* running OpenBSD, > > but only includes minor amounts of code that Bosch copied from > > OpenBSD, and that OpenBSD, in turn, got from ISC and IBM. > > That seems the most likely explanation. Like I said, I was surprised to > find "OpenBSD" mentioned at all. > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "outdated". > > I meant maybe it referred to a time before the licensing of the code in > 4.4BSD was clarified, when there were claims that some was proprietary. > > I just thought I would mention it, given the history regarding licensing > of BSD code. > > Since there is no mention of GPL in the document, it would appear that > Bosch deliberately avoided components with GPL licensing. > > -- > Chris <emu...@disroot.org>
