Hello, emu...@disroot.org wrote on Sat, Jul 12, 2025 at 04:22:15AM +0800:
> full document. This is the relevant paragraph, on the first page: This product includes software components that are licensed by the copyright holders as free software or open source software. The appropriate license texts are printed below. So this definitely confirms that Bosch included some code published in 1996 by the ISC and in 1995 by IBM that is publicly available under the cited licenses. They do not say what the "OpenBSD" section title means. Given that they don't explain that, the simplest interpretation (that it's simply were they got the code from) that i guessed in my first mail seems even more likely. If they meant anything more complicated, they would probably have explained it. It seems likely that the file they used is /usr/src/lib/libc/net/base64.c because that file includes the two Copyright lines and the two licenses they cite. If that is true, it's kind of funny because it's a fairly simple file of only about 300 lines implementing a fairly simple RFC-specified (non-cryptographic) encoding algorithm not at all specific to OpenBSD. Then again, everybody is welcome to use code included in OpenBSD, including simple code, and also including third-party code we included from elsewhere. > Like I said, I was surprised to > find "OpenBSD" mentioned at all. That's not as unusual as you seem to think. For example, most operating systems and many other devices ship OpenSSH. At least at some point in the past, Android phones included significant parts of the OpenBSD C library (i didn't check lately how much they diverged in the meantime). Recent versions of macOS include mandoc(1) as the default documentation formatter, since October 2022. And so on. >> I'm not sure what you mean by "outdated".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. That's not possible. OpenBSD 1.2 (1996) was based on NetBSD 1.0 (1994) and that was based on 4.4BSD-Lite1 (1994). 4.4BSD-Lite1 already had the proprietary files removed, so they never made it into OpenBSD. > I just thought I would mention it, given the history regarding > licensing of BSD code. Fair enough. However, after looking at it, i see no indication of anything being wrong here from a licensing perspective, so i think all this is most likely just fine. > Since there is no mention of GPL in the document, it would appear that > Bosch deliberately avoided components with GPL licensing. No wonder, GPL code is mostly useless for practical purposes because you cannot link it to non-GPL code. In that sense, being non-free is the whole point of the GPL. Yours, Ingo
