On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:30 AM, J.C. Roberts <list-...@designtools.org>wrote:
> > > > Ted, > > 1.) A license declaration within a source file takes precedence over a > license in an accompanying file. > So, locality is more important than an air of officiality. Good. > > 2.) Even if you could trace how the file got into the Diku or Merc > project, the author still holds the rights, so it makes no difference > if he gave permission to the *_DIKU/MERC_project_* (or some member > thereof) to include his work. Rights are reserved *UNLESS* granted, so > nothing is forfeit by its inclusion with the DIKU/MERC project sources. > > 3.) Since an OpenBSD port can be created to neither distribute a > resulting package, nor mirror the distribution file (distfile --i.e. > DIKU/MERC source code archive), a port is feasible. > > 4.) Even when no package is being distributed, since an OpenBSD port can > include patches, things can very messy when modification is required > and the license somehow forbids modification/distribution or requires > special conditions for modification/distribution. If you started > distributing a patch set for Microsoft Windows, they'd come down on you > like a ton of bricks. A similar sad fate is potentially possible for > patches against any work using a wonky licenses with (e)strange(d) > conditions regarding modification or distribution. > > You should read up in the misc@ archives on the endless debates, > headaches, and eventual resolution (removed from the OpenBSD ports > tree) caused by the wonky modification/distribution conditions of > original DJB license. > > Going through them now via neohapsis. > 5.) As for your previous comment about you personally taking all the > risks of any license issues, the answer is no, you cannot. Copyright > law doesn't work that way. Any user of your port is potentially > vulnerable to litigation, and if your port was included in the OpenBSD > ports tree, then the OpenBSD project itself would be potentially > vulnerable to litigation. > > This sounds much more realistic, and is what I expected from the start. > > All of the above means you only have two choices: > > A.) Contact the rights holder and convince them to change the license. > B.) Maintain a port on your own, posting your updates to ports@, and do > *NOT* expect (or ask for) it to be added to the OpenBSD ports tree. > > What about a completely unrelated project? If I have clean licensing on everything, can I then ask for addition to the tree? Or should I just neatly post to ports@ and see what happens? > > Sure, you could have figured all this out on your own with enough study, > but even if you did, you'd still need a good lawyer to look it over, as > well as *still* need to pay said good lawyer to defend you if a rights > holder disagrees with your interpretation of reality. > > -jcr > Thanks for your time. I have had to work with some Copyright and NDA in my career. It sure is a mess....
