Re: Licensing
On Sat, May 09, 2009 at 09:47:52AM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote: One thing that did not cross my mind prior was regarding the comments Chad made, use in media other than within the programming scope itself. I think that's an important consideration that most programmers overlook. One of the greatest benefits of open source software is the availability of the code for viewing by people who want to *learn*. To use licenses that make it difficult to include code in a single instructional work distributed under the terms of a single license seems extremely short-sighted to me. Even if you don't think your code will ever be used in such a way, code that *incorporates* yours may some day be suitable for such a purpose, and it would be nice if the license you choose lends itself to such use in the future. FYI, almost all of my apps are for systems/network management and automation. I've written an application that bridges our wireless hotspots to our payment bank site (the bank supplied me a Perl module), through to radius, and with an expiry method to automatically remove the users so that the entire process is hands off. The bank's Perl module may well impose constraints on how you can license your code, in addition to any restrictions that may exist as a result of employment agreements and contracts, at least if the module ends up being part of, or a source of necessary functionality for, your code. Most of my code would have to be changed to make it generic and not so site specific before being put out there. Being that I'm not really a programmer, having my code out there for peer review would make it much, much better if it was useful. (I'd probably be on the receiving end of finger pointing and laughing, but that's ok ;) That's a great attitude. I wish you the best of luck in coming to an equitable and satisfying decision about licensing, and in future coding efforts. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Mike Maples, as quoted by James Gleick: My job is to get a fair share of the software applications market, and to me that's 100 percent. pgpGaCcEmMWPz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Licensing
Chad Perrin wrote: [..huge snip..] I hope you get some value from my rambling. I have gained very much value from what everyone has had to say, and I want to thank everyone. Although I have very much reading to do, I've come to a few conclusions thus far. One thing that did not cross my mind prior was regarding the comments Chad made, use in media other than within the programming scope itself. FYI, almost all of my apps are for systems/network management and automation. I've written an application that bridges our wireless hotspots to our payment bank site (the bank supplied me a Perl module), through to radius, and with an expiry method to automatically remove the users so that the entire process is hands off. Most of my code would have to be changed to make it generic and not so site specific before being put out there. Being that I'm not really a programmer, having my code out there for peer review would make it much, much better if it was useful. (I'd probably be on the receiving end of finger pointing and laughing, but that's ok ;) Thanks all! Steve smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Licensing
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote: I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know that there are people here who can guide me off-list. Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've written numerous network automation programs (mostly in Perl), and have developed several small patches for software written in C related to ISP operations (including the OS itself). I'm looking for advice on how I can take all of my code, and license it into the public domain. I'm sure that most people won't have any interest in it, but I really want to ensure that what I have done is freely accessible. All of my code is pretty well separated into different files that contain different functions, so isolating portions of my programs that use modules or functions that are external is not a problem. GPL seems too verbose legally for me. Can the BSD license fit into any code, no matter what language it is in, and if so, can I have my code overlooked by someone who can verify that the BSD license will fit? Steve Dear Steve , You may inspect the following pages and links in them : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_software_licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_by_license http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_licenses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_distribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_domain I am not a lawyer and I can not comment on your possible decisions . My suggestion would be to study related laws in your country before making software available to public because some companies may not allow employees to disclose any software whether they write themselves without getting any support form their employers . There is no any relationship between programming language used and the license kind selected . License is the terms of use of the disclosed sources by the others . Another concept is Copyrights . You can only license a source which its copyright is exactly belongs to you . In some countries specifying a copyright on a work actually copyrighted by another entity may induce a legal penalty . For me , the best license is BSD-style licenses because recipients of software may use them in open and closed source applications . Since licenses like GPL and LGPL Version 3 requires disclosure of linked main programs , they can not be used in closed source applications . Therefore , any commercial entity can not use them and would NOT support them . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Licensing
On May 8, 2009 01:09:51 am Steve Bertrand wrote: I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know that there are people here who can guide me off-list. Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've written numerous network automation programs (mostly in Perl), and have developed several small patches for software written in C related to ISP operations (including the OS itself). I'm looking for advice on how I can take all of my code, and license it into the public domain. I'm sure that most people won't have any interest in it, but I really want to ensure that what I have done is freely accessible. All of my code is pretty well separated into different files that contain different functions, so isolating portions of my programs that use modules or functions that are external is not a problem. GPL seems too verbose legally for me. Can the BSD license fit into any code, no matter what language it is in, and if so, can I have my code overlooked by someone who can verify that the BSD license will fit? Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I would keep away from the term 'public domain', which means you would lose any rights to it whatsoever. I don't think the language makes any difference. Basically, the BSD license is OK if you don't mind others taking the code, modifying it and distributing binaries without making the modified source available. If you don't like the last part, consider the GPL. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Licensing
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Mike Jeays mike.je...@rogers.com wrote: On May 8, 2009 01:09:51 am Steve Bertrand wrote: I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know that there are people here who can guide me off-list. Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've written numerous network automation programs (mostly in Perl), and have developed several small patches for software written in C related to ISP operations (including the OS itself). I'm looking for advice on how I can take all of my code, and license it into the public domain. I'm sure that most people won't have any interest in it, but I really want to ensure that what I have done is freely accessible. All of my code is pretty well separated into different files that contain different functions, so isolating portions of my programs that use modules or functions that are external is not a problem. GPL seems too verbose legally for me. Can the BSD license fit into any code, no matter what language it is in, and if so, can I have my code overlooked by someone who can verify that the BSD license will fit? Steve I would keep away from the term 'public domain', which means you would lose any rights to it whatsoever. Public Domain does NOT invalidate Copyright : The owner of the work is the copyright holder . Public Domain is a license kind which means that there is no any condition on the usage . For example , BSD-style licenses generally are mentioned as 2-clause ( conditions ) , 3-clause ( conditions ) , etc. . Public Domain license means Zero-clause license . I don't think the language makes any difference. Basically, the BSD license is OK if you don't mind others taking the code, modifying it and distributing binaries without making the modified source available. If you don't like the last part, consider the GPL. Language and used libraries sometimes may cause problems for the users of the sources when they want to distribute executables . For example , if a BSD-style licensed source uses GPL parts as called procedures , NOT the users of the both sources have any restriction , but when executable is distributed to others , BSD-style licensed sources also should be distributed due to GPL conditions although BSD-styled licensed part itself does not require distribution . My opinion is that most restrictive license is GPL although it is claimed that it gives freedom to users to get the source and modify it when they need . One point is forgotten or ignored : A BSD-style licensed source is also available from its originators whether it is distributed by its users or not . Thank you very much . Mehmet Erol Sanliturk ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Licensing
Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote: On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Mike Jeays mike.je...@rogers.com wrote: I would keep away from the term 'public domain', which means you would lose any rights to it whatsoever. Public Domain does NOT invalidate Copyright : The owner of the work is the copyright holder . Public Domain is a license kind which means that there is no any condition on the usage . For example , BSD-style licenses generally are mentioned as 2-clause ( conditions ) , 3-clause ( conditions ) , etc. . Public Domain license means Zero-clause license . Giving advice like this on an international list is practically an exercise in futility, as there's pretty much a 100% chance that what you're saying is completely wrong in at least one country (and, yes, that goes for everything I say below too :-). However, in some places, public domain does indeed mean that there is no copyright on it. It is my understanding that in some countries it is difficult, if not impossible, to disclaim copyright, so you can't put your own works into the public domain. Public Domain license is conflating copyrights and licenses, which while they interact, are not at all the same thing. In fairness I will grant that this is a common usage, despite the fact that some of us deplore its imprecision. My suggestion to the OP: 1) Make sure your employer (if any) doesn't have rules on this that you wish to follow, 2) Pick a license that appeals to you, 3a) If the software isn't important enough or valuable enough that you see hiring a lawyer if somebody violates your license, you're done, as so long as the license expresses what you'd prefer people to do, it really doesn't matter much whether or not you theoretically could enforce it, 3b) If this is valuable software, see a lawyer *before* you publish the software, preferably one who understands intellectual property *and* the various licenses that are available for free software. Do NOT depend on free advice from amateurs such as myself. Frankly, unless you see this software as providing revenue, or being part of some grand product you're releasing in phases, your license is making a philosophical declaration that a fair percentage of honorable users will more or less honor. The costs of bringing legal action to actually enforce a license are probably completely out of line with the value of the network utilities that you want to share. -- --Jon Radel j...@radel.com smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Licensing
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 01:09:51AM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote: I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know that there are people here who can guide me off-list. Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've written numerous network automation programs (mostly in Perl), and have developed several small patches for software written in C related to ISP operations (including the OS itself). I'm looking for advice on how I can take all of my code, and license it into the public domain. I'm sure that most people won't have any interest in it, but I really want to ensure that what I have done is freely accessible. All of my code is pretty well separated into different files that contain different functions, so isolating portions of my programs that use modules or functions that are external is not a problem. GPL seems too verbose legally for me. Can the BSD license fit into any code, no matter what language it is in, and if so, can I have my code overlooked by someone who can verify that the BSD license will fit? The first thing to determine is if any other entity might hold some interest (ownership/copyright interest) in any of it. If you were employed by someone or some institution to do the work or the work was done during time paid by those entities, then they may have an interest. If that is not the case, then the next thing to determine is if any of it should be submitted to existing OSen or Utilities as patches - bug fixes or improvements. These two may not be a conflict as many businesses will have no problem with you submitting back fixes in software you are using in their behalf. eg, for example, if you are using FreeBSD to run a system for the business and write a patch for FreeBSD while on company time that helps that business operate better, they probably will have no problem with your submitting the patch for permanent inclusion in FreeBSD. As much as possible, then, submit PRs and include the diffs that cover the fixes or improvements. Finally, if you have complete clear ownership of some unique utilities, then include license terms in the source with a requirement that the license term be included in any subsequent distributions and then submit the utilitie as a port - if it is for FreeBSD. For a reasonable idea of how to compose license terms, check out the license terms for FreeBSD on the web site. I really don't know where to submit it if it is not for FreeBSD, although there are several sites that such as SourceForge that make themselves repositories for various usefull utilities. You'd have to check with them for how to go about submitting things and what is expected in the way of support, etc. Please include well documented source and clear statements as to what the utilities do and how to use them. Writing man pages and why-to as well as how-tos is important. You don't have to worry a whole lot Good luck, jerry Steve ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Licensing
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 01:09:51AM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote: I'm looking for advice on how I can take all of my code, and license it into the public domain. I'm sure that most people won't have any interest in it, but I really want to ensure that what I have done is freely accessible. The term public domain has a very specific legal meaning and, unfortunately, that meaning can actually vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For instance, while France does have a public domain, you cannot release a work into the public domain -- you must use a specific license if you want to grant open access to that work. In most jurisdictions, public domain refers to a state where one has disclaimed copyright for something or otherwise given up all copyright claims on it. Note that copyright and credit are not the same thing, however. Attribution is ethically a matter of fraud, and most jurisdictions will legally treat it as a matter of fraud as well if something is misrepresented as being written by someone other than its actual author, though some jurisdictions add additional attribution protection through copyright. It is for reason of the fact that copyright law is much more widely supported across different jurisdictions (i.e., in different countries or legal systems) than any standardized understanding of public domain that most people with any understanding of the complexities will recommend using a license rather than the public domain, even if what you want is effectively the public domain. If that's your actual goal, select a license whose terms most closely approximate the public domain as you understand it, and let that be your legally binding statement of intent (for any jurisdiction that recognizes your copyright and your licensing privilege under copyright law). I'm happy to see someone wanting to make his code available to the world, by the way. Kudos to you. If there are no competing copyright claims on any of the work (such as an employment agreement that might interfere with your sole copyright claims), I absolutely encourage you to see through your intent to open the code up. Note, however, that I am not a lawyer in *any* jurisdiction, and the above should not be considered legal advice per se. Courts of law are notoriously fickle things that, for some reason, tend to be really bad at interpreting things the way the majority of humans believe they should be interpreted. Let the buyer beware, as they say. All of my code is pretty well separated into different files that contain different functions, so isolating portions of my programs that use modules or functions that are external is not a problem. GPL seems too verbose legally for me. Can the BSD license fit into any code, no matter what language it is in, and if so, can I have my code overlooked by someone who can verify that the BSD license will fit? Have you considered choosing a license that doesn't lock what you give to the world into the realm of code? While the terms of the BSD license for code in particular are great in my opinion, the fact that they specify software source code is not so great, because sticky ambiguities can arise when someone wants to include that code in a non-software context (such as writing an article or a book that makes use of the code, including it in music lyrics, showing it in a video production of some sort, and so on). My favorite license for all purposes at present is the Open Works License, and I actually use it to license all my emails to this mailing list: http://owl.apotheon.org While I'm at it, my favorite general licensing policy is copyfree. Where strong copyright protection is the default for many countries, notably the US and much of Europe, and copyleft is the Free Software Foundation's answer to copyright as a way of turning the purpose of copyright on its head, copyfree is kind of a rejection of both copyright and copyleft. Check out the canonical explanation: http://copyfree.org/policy/ Both the BSD license and the Open Works License are copyfree licenses, as are a number of other popular and widely used licenses. I hope you get some value from my rambling. -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] Quoth Thomas McCauley: The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out. pgpcVb4rDivpd.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries
Ted Mittelstaedt schrieb: - Original Message - From: Jeffrey Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kövesdán Gábor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries [freebsd-emulation cut from cc] On Feb 23, 2007, at 5:53 AM, Kövesdán Gábor wrote: The question is that can we extract and provide these binaries in a simple tar.gz file or is that considered a GPL/LGPL violation? The sources are freely available on slackware.com, but we are not sure doing so is legally correct. What do you think about this? Gábor, What you plan to do is perfectly fine under the GPL as long as (1) What you distribute is under the GPL license (2) You let people know where they can freely get the source (3) You don't take credit for work that isn't yours. Jeffrey, Kovesdan is not modifying the binaries or the sources, thus there is no need for him to GPL license his distribution - the files in his distribution already carry their own GPL license. He just needs to include all of the files, which by GPL requirement, are going to include a copies of the GPL licenses that are applied to those files, as well as instructions as to where to get the sources. He does not need to further apply some kind of 'overall' GPL license to his distribution. It's a similar issue as someone running an FTP server with GPL software on it, they are merely serving as a venue for the distribution. It's a fine point to be sure, but an important one espically as the FSF is aiming to have multiple, incompatible, versions of the GPL floating around. Ted Thanks for the answers to both of you. We just modify the packaging of the file: gzipped tarball instead of floppy images, so it will be fine to redistribute them with the pointer to the sources then. Regards, Gabor ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries
On Feb 25, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: Thanks for the answers to both of you. Szivesen We just modify the packaging of the file: gzipped tarball instead of floppy images, so it will be fine to redistribute them with the pointer to the sources then. Yes. As a shameless plug, there is an article about the GPL that appeared in Alaplap in 1994 titled Van aki szabadon szereti (Some like it free) by me and translated from English to Hungarian by Horlai Janos. Unfortunately, I can't find the exact reference. Cheers, -j -- Jeffrey Goldberghttp://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries
- Original Message - From: Jeffrey Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kövesdán Gábor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:02 AM Subject: Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries [freebsd-emulation cut from cc] On Feb 23, 2007, at 5:53 AM, Kövesdán Gábor wrote: The question is that can we extract and provide these binaries in a simple tar.gz file or is that considered a GPL/LGPL violation? The sources are freely available on slackware.com, but we are not sure doing so is legally correct. What do you think about this? Gábor, What you plan to do is perfectly fine under the GPL as long as (1) What you distribute is under the GPL license (2) You let people know where they can freely get the source (3) You don't take credit for work that isn't yours. Jeffrey, Kovesdan is not modifying the binaries or the sources, thus there is no need for him to GPL license his distribution - the files in his distribution already carry their own GPL license. He just needs to include all of the files, which by GPL requirement, are going to include a copies of the GPL licenses that are applied to those files, as well as instructions as to where to get the sources. He does not need to further apply some kind of 'overall' GPL license to his distribution. It's a similar issue as someone running an FTP server with GPL software on it, they are merely serving as a venue for the distribution. It's a fine point to be sure, but an important one espically as the FSF is aiming to have multiple, incompatible, versions of the GPL floating around. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries
[freebsd-emulation cut from cc] On Feb 23, 2007, at 5:53 AM, Kövesdán Gábor wrote: The question is that can we extract and provide these binaries in a simple tar.gz file or is that considered a GPL/LGPL violation? The sources are freely available on slackware.com, but we are not sure doing so is legally correct. What do you think about this? Gábor, What you plan to do is perfectly fine under the GPL as long as (1) What you distribute is under the GPL license (2) You let people know where they can freely get the source (3) You don't take credit for work that isn't yours. Szervusz, -j -- Jeffrey Goldberghttp://www.goldmark.org/jeff/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: Re: licensing]
I omitted sending this reply to Chris to the list by mistake. Please correct me if I am wrong. ---BeginMessage--- On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 11:06, Chris Knipe wrote: Quick question I'm not sure about the license that FreeBSD falls under. Are we allowed to modify code (specifically /sbin/natd) and resell it commercially as part of a product?? Secondly, natd runs via divert in usermode. Is there something similar in kernel mode? Kernelmode will obviously operate allot faster than usermode... -- me ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] My understanding of the BSD license is that you can sell applications that include code licensed under it, modified or not, and you don't have to distribute the modified source code. This is what happened with the Mac OS X operating system. This is of course NOT true for GNU/GPL-licensed software - that is the whole point of the difference. There, you can modify it and sell it, but you must distribute or make available at a low price your modifications in source code form. Much software that accompanies FreeBSD is licensed under the GPL, but the FreeBSD OS is BSD licensed. Check the license carefully for the components you are interested in. If I am wrong, there will be lots of corrections from the other list members. ---End Message--- ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Licensing issues
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003, Elektronix Support wrote: versions of FreeBSD on our hardware solutions, and sell to him. The organization we will sell this to is the end-user. .. I need to know if we can install FreeBSD and charge our customer for this, or if there are restrictions we must be aware of. In eveyr copy of freebsd you will find a license file in de / or root directory. A copy is also at http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/LEGAL and included below. For your case the key pat is clause 1 and 2: 1 Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2 Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. As you can see you can essentially do what you want, and charge what you want, for the code. There are however some restrictions with respect to liability, trademark and use of the name. So yes - propably no problem - but you do not want to take my word for it - but discuss it with a Norwegian expert. Secondly note certain 'ports' (i.e. optional additional packages) may have different rules. Several companies provide vendor support/consulting on FreeBSD and may also be able to help. I know that in our company this is an often asked question (for the Netherlands that is - no idea of Norwegian rules ;_). Dw # $FreeBSD: src/COPYRIGHT,v 1.4 1999/09/05 21:33:47 obrien Exp $ # @(#)COPYRIGHT 8.2 (Berkeley) 3/21/94 All of the documentation and software included in the 4.4BSD and 4.4BSD-Lite Releases is copyrighted by The Regents of the University of California. Copyright 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the American National Standards Committee X3, on Information Processing Systems have given us permission to reprint portions of their documentation. In the following statement, the phrase ``this text'' refers to portions of the system documentation. Portions of this text are reprinted and reproduced in electronic form in the second BSD Networking Software Release, from IEEE Std 1003.1-1988, IEEE Standard Portable Operating System Interface for Computer Environments (POSIX), copyright C 1988 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. In the event of any discrepancy between these versions and the original IEEE Standard, the original IEEE Standard is the referee document. In the following statement, the phrase ``This material'' refers to portions of the system documentation. This material is reproduced with permission from American National Standards Committee X3, on Information Processing Systems. Computer and Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (CBEMA), 311 First St., NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20001-2178. The developmental work of Programming Language C was completed by the X3J11 Technical Committee. The views and conclusions contained in the software and documentation are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing
