Re: License
Thanks everyone for the comments. I did read the license but just wanted to make sure of this. Nevertheless, you guys answered my question. Thank you. -Original Message- From: Amit Kulkarni [mailto:amitk...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2011 8:53 PM To: Simranjit Gill Cc: misc@openbsd.org; gianca...@engageinc.com Subject: Re: License I want to use the IPv6 source code in one of the products manufactured by my company and need to know if there are any restrictions or limitations regarding the use of source code in commercial products. Please let me know if this is not right place to enquire regarding the license. Thank you. Seriously speaking, you can use any OpenBSD source code anywhere. Just a simple requirement which is spelled out in each source file. Read it. You can look at any source file here on the website http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/ These are the goals and policies of OpenBSD http://openbsd.org/policy.html http://openbsd.org/goals.html This is one of the cleanest implementations of IPv6 source code. If you do use it, please a request, buy some CDs to help fund the project. You are probably going to get flamed by others. Don't use a public list to post such simple questions. This is addressed ad-nauseam elsewhere on the misc@ archives and probably in the FAQ somewhere.
Re: License
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 18:02:23 -0700, Simranjit Gill wrote: I want to use the IPv6 source code in one of the products manufactured by my company and need to know if there are any restrictions or limitations regarding the use of source code in commercial products. Please let me know if this is not right place to enquire regarding the license. Thank you. Did you look at the source code? The licence is there for all the world to see. As it is with most sane software. *** NOTE *** Please DO NOT CC me. I am subscribed to the list. Mail to the sender address that does not originate at the list server is tarpitted. The reply-to: address is provided for those who feel compelled to reply off list. Thankyou. Rod/ --- This life is not the real thing. It is not even in Beta. If it was, then OpenBSD would already have a man page for it.
Re: License
I want to use the IPv6 source code in one of the products manufactured by my company and need to know if there are any restrictions or limitations regarding the use of source code in commercial products. Please let me know if this is not right place to enquire regarding the license. Thank you. You can use it for anything. Ha-hah-hah. Guys, pile on.
Re: License
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Simranjit Gill sim...@engageinc.com wrote: Hello, I want to use the IPv6 source code in one of the products manufactured by my company and need to know if there are any restrictions or limitations regarding the use of source code in commercial products. Please let me know if this is not right place to enquire regarding the license. Thank you. Check the FAQ and check the source. http://openbsd.org/faq/faq1.html#ReallyFree http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/netinet6/in6.h?rev=1.53
Re: License
I want to use the IPv6 source code in one of the products manufactured by my company and need to know if there are any restrictions or limitations regarding the use of source code in commercial products. Please let me know if this is not right place to enquire regarding the license. Thank you. Seriously speaking, you can use any OpenBSD source code anywhere. Just a simple requirement which is spelled out in each source file. Read it. You can look at any source file here on the website http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/ These are the goals and policies of OpenBSD http://openbsd.org/policy.html http://openbsd.org/goals.html This is one of the cleanest implementations of IPv6 source code. If you do use it, please a request, buy some CDs to help fund the project. You are probably going to get flamed by others. Don't use a public list to post such simple questions. This is addressed ad-nauseam elsewhere on the misc@ archives and probably in the FAQ somewhere.
Re: License
Simranjit == Simranjit Gill sim...@engageinc.com writes: Simranjit Hello, I want to use the IPv6 source code in one of the Simranjit products manufactured by my company and need to know if there Simranjit are any restrictions or limitations regarding the use of Simranjit source code in commercial products. Please let me know if Simranjit this is not right place to enquire regarding the Simranjit license. Thank you. Very sad for people's ability to read. The future looks bleak. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.posterous.com/ for Smalltalk discussion
Re: License Violation - ksh
On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 01:37:53PM -0700, Bob Beck wrote: * Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-03 06:19]: No harm done just stupidity perpetuated. Kind of like fox news. Dunno about no harm done there marco - Saying fox news doesn't do any harm is like saying Joesph Goebels didn't to any harm - only perpetuated stupidity.. perpeduated stupidity can be damn harmful. I call Godwin's law! (specially because you're most unfortunately diminishing Gobbels' evil actions with that comparison). Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Pungenday, the 46th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...?
Re: License Violation - ksh
Pedro de Oliveira wrote: Hello, Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't this a license violation? The ksh in OpenBSD is the pdksh (Public Domain). Slap a license on it if you like, it matters not. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/License-Violation---ksh-tf4932920.html#a14163439 Sent from the openbsd user - misc mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: License Violation - ksh
No harm done just stupidity perpetuated. Kind of like fox news. On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 12:32:56AM -0500, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: Jacob Meuser wrote: On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 04:05:10PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: There are other sources as well: http://www.peereboom.us/ksh_linux.html http://www.wormhole.hu/~ice/ksh/ Don't know why that dude went through the trouble of putting gplv3 shit on it. fear, misunderstanding, and confusion caused by the rantings of RMS? Why would anyone bother putting a BSD license on something that started as PD ? The authors of PD KSH are perfectly free to choose to put it into the public domain. At that point while you could republish the whole mess under most any license you please you could not prevent the removal of any license you added on any of the original code. The developers of the OpenBSD variant chose a BSD license for the code they added. It appears the developer of the GPL variant respected that and chose GPLv3 for his contributions. No fouls were commited, and the only unhappiness is among zealots - regardless of their persuasion, who beleive their way is the one true and only way. On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 07:30:02PM -, Pedro de Oliveira wrote: Hello, Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't this a license violation? -- Dave LynchDLA Systems Software Development: Embedded Linux 717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net fax: 1.253.369.9244 Cell: 1.717.587.7774 Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein
Re: License Violation - ksh
Marco Peereboom wrote: No harm done just stupidity perpetuated. Kind of like fox news. I like that one! (; Started my day on a good note. Always thought Fox News was really bad, but felt many disagree.
Re: License Violation - ksh
Daniel Ouellet wrote: ... Always thought Faux News was really bad,... There. Fixed it for you. ;)
Re: License Violation - ksh
* Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-03 06:19]: No harm done just stupidity perpetuated. Kind of like fox news. Dunno about no harm done there marco - Saying fox news doesn't do any harm is like saying Joesph Goebels didn't to any harm - only perpetuated stupidity.. perpeduated stupidity can be damn harmful. -Bob
Re: License Violation - ksh
Bob Beck wrote: * Marco Peereboom [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-12-03 06:19]: No harm done just stupidity perpetuated. Kind of like fox news. Dunno about no harm done there marco - Saying fox news doesn't do any harm is like saying Joesph Goebels didn't to any harm - only perpetuated stupidity.. perpeduated stupidity can be damn harmful. did you hear about how al qaeda set those fires in southern california?!?! if you say it enough times it must be true. think i saw that last part on CNN... -Bob --
Re: License Violation - ksh
Hello, Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't this a license violation? See /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL. People can do just about whatever they want with public domain code, including slapping a license on it. Anyone foolish (or lazy) enough to derive code from the licenses derivative deserves the license they get. But some parts of OpenBSD's ksh are BSD-licensed files, which did not come from pdksh initially. Relicensing these files under GPLv3 is only possible if their authors gave permission. Miod
Re: License Violation - ksh
Pedro de Oliveira writes: Hello, Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't this a license violation? See /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL. People can do just about whatever they want with public domain code, including slapping a license on it. Anyone foolish (or lazy) enough to derive code from the licenses derivative deserves the license they get. // marc
Re: License Violation - ksh
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 07:30:02PM -, Pedro de Oliveira wrote: Hello, Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't this a license violation? It seems that this is not a violation since the ksh-source is in the public domain. Read /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL. Regards, Ivo van der Sangen
Re: License Violation - ksh
Miod Vallat writes: But some parts of OpenBSD's ksh are BSD-licensed files, which did not come from pdksh initially. That's not what /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL states, but I didn't look further. OK, looking I see that alloc.c and mknod.c have copyrights. Relicensing these files under GPLv3 is only possible if their authors gave permission. Very true. Were they relicensed, or tossed and re-written from scratch? // marc
Re: License Violation - ksh
Pedro de Oliveira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't this a license violation? Marco S Hyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL. People can do just about whatever they want with public domain code, including slapping a license on it. Anyone foolish (or lazy) enough to derive code from the licenses derivative deserves the license they get. On 02/12/2007, Miod Vallat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But some parts of OpenBSD's ksh are BSD-licensed files, which did not come from pdksh initially. Relicensing these files under GPLv3 is only possible if their authors gave permission. Okay, so in case that is true, my question to Pedro is: Have you contacted the publisher of http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ privately before going public on a widely read mailing list? It would seem the poluite thing to do, no? Maybe the guy (or gal)'s not very well informed and made an honest mistake. --ropers
Re: License Violation - ksh
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 06:14:09PM -0300, Andr?s wrote: On Dec 2, 2007 5:42 PM, Marco S Hyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Miod Vallat writes: But some parts of OpenBSD's ksh are BSD-licensed files, which did not come from pdksh initially. That's not what /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL states, but I didn't look further. OK, looking I see that alloc.c and mknod.c have copyrights. Relicensing these files under GPLv3 is only possible if their authors gave permission. Very true. Were they relicensed, or tossed and re-written from scratch? // marc As far as I can see, a COPYING file (containing the GPLv3) was placed along the others files of OpenBSD's ksh. The license of alloc.c, for example, has not been modified. None of the licenses have actually been modified. The fact that there is a COPYING file added which contains a copy of the GPLv3 seems harmless, but is confusing. Ivo
Re: License Violation - ksh
Marco S Hyman wrote: Miod Vallat writes: But some parts of OpenBSD's ksh are BSD-licensed files, which did not come from pdksh initially. That's not what /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL states, but I didn't look further. OK, looking I see that alloc.c and mknod.c have copyrights. Relicensing these files under GPLv3 is only possible if their authors gave permission. Very true. Were they relicensed, or tossed and re-written from scratch? Looking at http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/oksh-0.3.tar.gz, I see: The copyright notice at the top of alloc.c is still there, providing (I presume correctly) sole attribution to Marc Espie. The file mknod.c is gone, per the comments on the site (Removed internal mknod builtin command). The file oksh-0.3/LEGAL is identical to revision 1.2 of /usr/src/bin/ksh/LEGAL in the OpenBSD CVS repository. In addition to those, oksh-0.3/COPYING is the GNU GPLv3, and oksh-0.3/README.oksh says oksh is licensed under the GPLv3, see COPYING. oksh contains code originally released as Public Domain and BSD 3-clause License. From my understanding, the author of the port has met the requirements of the 2-clause BSD license under which alloc.c is distributed. They refer to it as the 3-clause BSD license, which GNU appears to do as well (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD), depending on where you look (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/info/BSD_2Clause.html). -- Matthew Weigel hacker unique idempot.ent
Re: License Violation - ksh
There are other sources as well: http://www.peereboom.us/ksh_linux.html http://www.wormhole.hu/~ice/ksh/ Don't know why that dude went through the trouble of putting gplv3 shit on it. On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 07:30:02PM -, Pedro de Oliveira wrote: Hello, Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't this a license violation?
Re: License Violation - ksh
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 04:05:10PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: There are other sources as well: http://www.peereboom.us/ksh_linux.html http://www.wormhole.hu/~ice/ksh/ Don't know why that dude went through the trouble of putting gplv3 shit on it. fear, misunderstanding, and confusion caused by the rantings of RMS? On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 07:30:02PM -, Pedro de Oliveira wrote: Hello, Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't this a license violation? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
Re: License Violation - ksh
Jacob Meuser wrote: On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 04:05:10PM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote: There are other sources as well: http://www.peereboom.us/ksh_linux.html http://www.wormhole.hu/~ice/ksh/ Don't know why that dude went through the trouble of putting gplv3 shit on it. fear, misunderstanding, and confusion caused by the rantings of RMS? Why would anyone bother putting a BSD license on something that started as PD ? The authors of PD KSH are perfectly free to choose to put it into the public domain. At that point while you could republish the whole mess under most any license you please you could not prevent the removal of any license you added on any of the original code. The developers of the OpenBSD variant chose a BSD license for the code they added. It appears the developer of the GPL variant respected that and chose GPLv3 for his contributions. No fouls were commited, and the only unhappiness is among zealots - regardless of their persuasion, who beleive their way is the one true and only way. On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 07:30:02PM -, Pedro de Oliveira wrote: Hello, Someone on IRC just posted this link http://www.delilinux.de/oksh/ , seems like someone ported OpenBSD ksh to Linux and licensed it under GPLv3. Isn't this a license violation? -- Dave Lynch DLA Systems Software Development:Embedded Linux 717.627.3770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dlasys.net fax: 1.253.369.9244Cell: 1.717.587.7774 Over 25 years' experience in platforms, languages, and technologies too numerous to list. Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. Albert Einstein
Re: license for getopt.c?
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 12:09:47PM -0400, Will H. Backman wrote: While wandering through the usr.bin source tree (not to imply that I am qualified to take the journey), I noticed that getopt.c doesn't have a license clause in it. Anyone know who david might be? $OpenBSD: getopt.c,v 1.6 2003/07/10 00:06:51 david Exp $ -- Will the file was indeed missing its copyright. the author has agreed to its being public domain, so a suitable blurb has been added (as per getopt.1). thanks for the mail jmc
Re: license for getopt.c?
Will H. Backman wrote: While wandering through the usr.bin source tree (not to imply that I am qualified to take the journey), I noticed that getopt.c doesn't have a license clause in it. Anyone know who david might be? david@ = David Krause Cheers, Dries
Re: license for getopt.c?
On 5/31/06, Will H. Backman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While wandering through the usr.bin source tree (not to imply that I am qualified to take the journey), I noticed that getopt.c doesn't have a license clause in it. Anyone know who david might be? $OpenBSD: getopt.c,v 1.6 2003/07/10 00:06:51 david Exp $ it would be helpful if you mentioned *which* getopt.c. the one in libc (before it was deleted) certainly did have a license. i also doubt david wrote the file in question if that's why you're asking.
Re: license for getopt.c?
Ted Unangst wrote: On 5/31/06, Will H. Backman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While wandering through the usr.bin source tree (not to imply that I am qualified to take the journey), I noticed that getopt.c doesn't have a license clause in it. Anyone know who david might be? $OpenBSD: getopt.c,v 1.6 2003/07/10 00:06:51 david Exp $ it would be helpful if you mentioned *which* getopt.c. the one in libc (before it was deleted) certainly did have a license. i also doubt david wrote the file in question if that's why you're asking. Here is where I found it: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/getopt/
Re: license for getopt.c?
On 5/31/06, Ted Unangst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/31/06, Will H. Backman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While wandering through the usr.bin source tree (not to imply that I am qualified to take the journey), I noticed that getopt.c doesn't have a license clause in it. Anyone know who david might be? $OpenBSD: getopt.c,v 1.6 2003/07/10 00:06:51 david Exp $ it would be helpful if you mentioned *which* getopt.c. the one in libc (before it was deleted) certainly did have a license. i also doubt david wrote the file in question if that's why you're asking. Well he mentioned the usr.bin source tree, and there is only one getopt.c file in usr.bin source tree. And he mentioned david because he's the last one to edit the file according to the $OpenBSD$ RCS Id. If I recall correctly, not having a license means full Copyright law is in effect, which means no copying allowed, however getopt.c in /usr/src/usr.bin/getopt/ doesn't seem to have much of anything except a call to getopt(3). Jason
