Re: Passage about licensing from OpenBSD documentation
Paul Yep, that is definitely the authorative source. I've been using archive.org for a couple decades that I forget openbsd.org website uses CVS. 73 On February 8, 2022 9:11:56 AM MST, Paul de Weerd wrote: >On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 08:54:08AM -0700, deich...@placebonol.com wrote: >| Try archive.org for older versions of openbsd.org. > >Or just the CVS repository. The openbsd.org website is under revision >control, there's 26 years of history available over at > > http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/www/ > >You may specifically be interested in the history of the goals and >policy pages that were mentioned in this thread: > > http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/www/goals.html > http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/www/policy.html > >Cheers, > >Paul > >-- >>[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ >+++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] > http://www.weirdnet.nl/ >
Re: Passage about licensing from OpenBSD documentation
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 08:54:08AM -0700, deich...@placebonol.com wrote: | Try archive.org for older versions of openbsd.org. Or just the CVS repository. The openbsd.org website is under revision control, there's 26 years of history available over at http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/www/ You may specifically be interested in the history of the goals and policy pages that were mentioned in this thread: http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/www/goals.html http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/www/policy.html Cheers, Paul -- >[<++>-]<+++.>+++[<-->-]<.>+++[<+ +++>-]<.>++[<>-]<+.--.[-] http://www.weirdnet.nl/
Re: Passage about licensing from OpenBSD documentation
Try archive.org for older versions of openbsd.org. On February 8, 2022 8:39:46 AM MST, Ibsen S Ripsbusker wrote: >On Tue, Feb 8, 2022, at 15:25, Nick Holland wrote: >> Probably be one of these two pages, I think: >> >> https://www.openbsd.org/goals.html >> https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html >> >> I call it the "Microsoft Question": which do you fear more? >> 1) That MS uses your code and profits from your work >> --> you might want to consider the GPL license >> >> 2) That MS DOESN'T use your code and reinvents it badly >> --> You might want to use an ISC/BSD license. >> >> The OpenBSD project would greatly prefer that their code be >> reused, rather than re-invented poorly. > >Dear Nick, > >It is precisely this topic, but I think the passage that I read before >was even better. I appreciated the passage of interest for its >arrogance, similar to your phrasing of the Microsoft Question >but more blunt. > >The passage was maybe a paragraph long, and I think it was >an interjection to some other topic rather than its own webpage. > >It could be that the recent goals and policy documents were >adapted from the earlier phrasing, perhaps to cater to people >who don't share my appreciation of arrogance. > >With appreciation, >Ibsen >
Re: Passage about licensing from OpenBSD documentation
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022, at 15:25, Nick Holland wrote: > Probably be one of these two pages, I think: > > https://www.openbsd.org/goals.html > https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html > > I call it the "Microsoft Question": which do you fear more? > 1) That MS uses your code and profits from your work > --> you might want to consider the GPL license > > 2) That MS DOESN'T use your code and reinvents it badly > --> You might want to use an ISC/BSD license. > > The OpenBSD project would greatly prefer that their code be > reused, rather than re-invented poorly. Dear Nick, It is precisely this topic, but I think the passage that I read before was even better. I appreciated the passage of interest for its arrogance, similar to your phrasing of the Microsoft Question but more blunt. The passage was maybe a paragraph long, and I think it was an interjection to some other topic rather than its own webpage. It could be that the recent goals and policy documents were adapted from the earlier phrasing, perhaps to cater to people who don't share my appreciation of arrogance. With appreciation, Ibsen
Re: Passage about licensing from OpenBSD documentation
On 2/6/22 11:57 PM, Ibsen S Ripsbusker wrote: My great and good friends, Like 20 years ago while trying to install OpenBSD for the first time I read a short passage in OpenBSD documentation that I really liked. Does anyone know where I can find it? The passage that said very directly that we license OpenBSD permissively because we know our software is especially good in comparison to the consistently broken proprietary majority and we prefer that proprietary projects copy our good software so they don't create more broken software. With appreciation, Ibsen Probably be one of these two pages, I think: https://www.openbsd.org/goals.html https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html I call it the "Microsoft Question": which do you fear more? 1) That MS uses your code and profits from your work --> you might want to consider the GPL license 2) That MS DOESN'T use your code and reinvents it badly --> You might want to use an ISC/BSD license. The OpenBSD project would greatly prefer that their code be reused, rather than re-invented poorly. Nick.
Passage about licensing from OpenBSD documentation
My great and good friends, Like 20 years ago while trying to install OpenBSD for the first time I read a short passage in OpenBSD documentation that I really liked. Does anyone know where I can find it? The passage that said very directly that we license OpenBSD permissively because we know our software is especially good in comparison to the consistently broken proprietary majority and we prefer that proprietary projects copy our good software so they don't create more broken software. With appreciation, Ibsen
Licensing question
Hello, I'm a mail administrator for a student group at my alma mater, RIT. We're not particularly satisfied with our current greylisting software (gld), and the best alternative (hell, the best greylisting software, hands down) is spamd. Unfortunately, none of the other sysadmins want to maintain an OpenBSD, simply because they're unfamiliar with it (they only know linux). So obviously the correct solution was to port spamd to linux. I currently have an untested (I'm going to spin up some EC2 instances to do testing this weekend) start on a port to linux on GitHub: https://github.com/worr/spamd So my questions: Is there anything else I need to do to make sure that I'm kosher with the license terms? I based the LICENSE file off of the one from portable OpenSMTPD. Do I need to update any of the copyright notices at the beginning of the files? I love the software so much that I want to contribute back to spamd, is there anything special I need to do other than emailing patches to tech@? Other than following the cvs logs, tech@ and the Changes pages, is there anyway I can be updated with changes to spamd? Thanks so much for the help and for the awesome software!
Re: Licensing question
On 2013-06-22, William Orr w...@worrbase.com wrote: I currently have an untested (I'm going to spin up some EC2 instances to do testing this weekend) start on a port to linux on GitHub: https://github.com/worr/spamd So my questions: Is there anything else I need to do to make sure that I'm kosher with the license terms? I based the LICENSE file off of the one from portable OpenSMTPD. Do I need to update any of the copyright notices at the beginning of the files? spamd has its own license and copyright notices, these should be kept - opensmtpd copyright notices do not apply as it is different code by different authors. I love the software so much that I want to contribute back to spamd, is there anything special I need to do other than emailing patches to tech@? Please send patches inline in the email body rather than as an attachment, preferably as cvs diff -uNp against the -current OpenBSD tree, Other than following the cvs logs, tech@ and the Changes pages, is there anyway I can be updated with changes to spamd? There's a source-changes mailing list, if you're not interested in other changes to OpenBSD then I guess maybe you could subscribe and filter out uninteresting things via sieve/procmail/etc?
Licensing OpenBSD artwork as CC-BY-SA?
Hi, I'm thinking about creating a community ad for http://meta.unix.stackexchange.com/q/1105/9454 for OpenBSD with an image from http://www.openbsd.org/art2.html One of the conditions is that the images must be uploaded to their network (via imgur), which requires a licensing as CC-BY-SA. This doesn't seem to be compatible with http://www.openbsd.org/art2.html Most images provided here are copyright by OpenBSD, by Theo de Raadt, or by other members or developers of the OpenBSD group. However, it is our intent that anyone be able to use these images to represent OpenBSD in a positive light Am I right or is that allowed? Theo? Best Martin
Re: Licensing OpenBSD artwork as CC-BY-SA?
It is not allowed. I think the existing rules are fair, and I don't understand why there is often an attempt to subvert this. Realistically --- most other projects have rules much tighter. Most of them are trademarks. I'm thinking about creating a community ad for http://meta.unix.stackexchange.com/q/1105/9454 for OpenBSD with an image from http://www.openbsd.org/art2.html One of the conditions is that the images must be uploaded to their network (via imgur), which requires a licensing as CC-BY-SA. This doesn't seem to be compatible with http://www.openbsd.org/art2.html Most images provided here are copyright by OpenBSD, by Theo de Raadt, or by other members or developers of the OpenBSD group. However, it is our intent that anyone be able to use these images to represent OpenBSD in a positive light Am I right or is that allowed? Theo? Best Martin
Re: Licensing OpenBSD artwork as CC-BY-SA?
2013/2/22 Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org: It is not allowed. I thought the same. So https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Openbsd2.svg is really a violation? Best Martin
Re: Licensing
On 2013 Jan 07 (Mon) at 23:50:04 -0800 (-0800), noah pugsley wrote: So what? This is radically off-topic, please don't bring this kind of crap to misc@. -- You may be sure that when a man begins to call himself a realist, he is preparing to do something he is secretly ashamed of doing. -- Sydney Harris
bcrypt.c licensing
Hi! I have a question about the license for bcrypt.c. The OpenBSD policy page (http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html) says: Berkeley rescinded the 3rd term (the advertising term) on 22 July 1999. Verbatim copies of the Berkeley license in the OpenBSD tree have that term removed. In addition, many 3rd-party BSD-style licenses consist solely of the first two terms. But bcrypt.c still contains the 3rd term: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libc/crypt/bcrypt.c?rev=1.24; content-type=text%2Fplain Is bcrypt.c still under the 4 term license? Should the third term be removed? Thanks. -- Aaron Patterson http://tenderlovemaking.com/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: bcrypt.c licensing
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:23:13AM -0700, Aaron Patterson wrote: Hi! I have a question about the license for bcrypt.c. The OpenBSD policy page (http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html) says: Berkeley rescinded the 3rd term (the advertising term) on 22 July 1999. Verbatim copies of the Berkeley license in the OpenBSD tree have that term removed. In addition, many 3rd-party BSD-style licenses consist solely of the first two terms. But bcrypt.c still contains the 3rd term: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libc/crypt/bcrypt.c?rev=1.24; content-type=text%2Fplain Is bcrypt.c still under the 4 term license? Should the third term be removed? Why don't you ask the copyright owner i.e. Niels Provos? He's the only one who can decide that. -Otto
Re: bcrypt.c licensing
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 06:28:21PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote: On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 09:23:13AM -0700, Aaron Patterson wrote: Hi! I have a question about the license for bcrypt.c. The OpenBSD policy page (http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html) says: Berkeley rescinded the 3rd term (the advertising term) on 22 July 1999. Verbatim copies of the Berkeley license in the OpenBSD tree have that term removed. In addition, many 3rd-party BSD-style licenses consist solely of the first two terms. But bcrypt.c still contains the 3rd term: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libc/crypt/bcrypt.c?rev=1.24; content-type=text%2Fplain Is bcrypt.c still under the 4 term license? Should the third term be removed? Why don't you ask the copyright owner i.e. Niels Provos? He's the only one who can decide that. Okay. I will try asking him. Thank you. -- Aaron Patterson http://tenderlovemaking.com/ [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
Re: bcrypt.c licensing
I have a question about the license for bcrypt.c. The OpenBSD policy page (http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html) says: Berkeley rescinded the 3rd term (the advertising term) on 22 July 1999. Verbatim copies of the Berkeley license in the OpenBSD tree have that term removed. That applies to the files gotten *from Berkeley*. In addition, many 3rd-party BSD-style licenses consist solely of the first two terms. You have found a file which does not fall into this list of many. This file is apparently one of the files behind the use of the word many instead of the word all. But bcrypt.c still contains the 3rd term: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/lib/libc/crypt/bcrypt.c?rev=1.24; content-type=text%2Fplain Is bcrypt.c still under the 4 term license? As you can see in the file, yup. Should the third term be removed? Only if that author says so.
Re: licensing
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:57:40 -0600 Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: Now, did umplawny have the original right to put his restricted code into a project that was much more loosely licensed? If he did not, can I use his improperly licensed code (ie. does he forfeit his license by superseding restrictions of the previous license, or by not having permission to modify the source, and add his own?) There's a tricky difference here I'm trying to get at. Either his code must be removed (most likely), or there is a loophole which allows me to circumvent his license in favor of the Diku or Merc licenses. Also, umplawny did not go so far as to create a license file representing his interests. He merely pasted his declaration directly into the source (farther down than the header text) like this: /* NOT TO BE USED OR REPLICATED WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION OF AUTHOR */ Again, this code umplawny introduced is commonly referred to as snippets. It adds features for users and admins alike, but it is not critical to the functioning of the code as it was created by the Diku and Merc teams. Ted, 1.) A license declaration within a source file takes precedence over a license in an accompanying file. 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. 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. 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. 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
Re: licensing
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:30 AM, J.C. Roberts list-...@designtools.orgwrote: 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
Re: licensing
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:52:55 -0600 Theo de Raadt dera...@cvs.openbsd.org wrote: There's non-free software in the ports tree. Not in a real sense. The ports tree is a build infrastructure containing Makefiles, lists of files and where they should go, and (in a perfect world, continously shrinking) minimal patches. It does not contain source, per se. There are small code snippets which are _patches_, but the patches are largely of no great consequences. They exist to adapt foreign software to our interfaces, and the idea is that those patches should eventually be fed upsteam, or become unneccesary. Yes, that is true. I believe we had a discussion about this with a certain individual not that long ago. In my view the ports tree merely contain /pointers/ to some non-free software which the user can choose to use or not. There's non-free software /in/ the ports tree was not entirely accurate.
Re: licensing
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 06:35:03 -0600 Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: 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? I do not understand your question. If I have clean licensing on everything, can I then ask for addition to the tree? Of course you can ask, and if the port is both well done and well tested, then someone else might have enough interest to take the time to commit it. But of course, there are no guarantees. You'll never know if something is useful or interesting to others until you say, Here's what I brought to the party. Or should I just neatly post to ports@ and see what happens? Assuming a good port without caustic licensing, whether a port only lives on the ports@ list archives or lives in the official project ports tree, is highly subjective. You've showed up at a party where people are having fun. You were told drinks and snacks can be found in both the refrigerator and in the ice chests on the porch. --Does it really matter if someone important like the host of the party decides to move your favorite beverage or snack from the ice chest to the fridge? Do you think you'd look like an ass if you *INSISTED* that the host of the part spend his free time moving your favorite drinks or snacks from the icebox to the fridge? If you fail to maintain and support your supposedly favorite whatever after it's been moved into the fridge, we'll eventually have yet another moldy OpenBSD Culture rotting in the fridge. The very same kind folks who wasted their time putting it in the fridge for you, will now need to waste more time removing the crud. -jcr
Re: licensing
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:25 PM, J.C. Roberts list-...@designtools.orgwrote: If I have clean licensing on everything, can I then ask for addition to the tree? Of course you can ask, and if the port is both well done and well tested, then someone else might have enough interest to take the time to commit it. But of course, there are no guarantees. That is what I was aiming for with both questions. Thanks. You'll never know if something is useful or interesting to others until you say, Here's what I brought to the party. Or should I just neatly post to ports@ and see what happens? Assuming a good port without caustic licensing, whether a port only lives on the ports@ list archives or lives in the official project ports tree, is highly subjective. No problem! Sounds like I had a good understanding of the procedure. I'd rather ask than ass-u-me. I don't expect anything to be favored unless it stands up on its own merit, and found useful. Now to just choose... Thanks list.
Re: licensing
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Sean Kamath kam...@geekoids.com wrote: On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:57 PM, Ted Roby wrote: I got more help from the first poster who suggested using Circle Mud instead. The problem is, I was quite attached to to this modified Rom code, and perhaps committed the error of getting my hopes up. You just weren't sicto to/sic clear in your first post. I guess not. Further posting of Diku code brought out Lars' useful reply. /dev/null here couldn't figure out if you were just bitching about the idiocy of people's random licenses (and believe me, I've been seeing stupid licenses on code since 1984 on my school's Vax 785 run BSD4.1 -- it's gotten only marginally better), or whining that you couldn't use this super-cool pile of code because you couldn't contact the author. You weren't actually a NULL by the time I wrote that. I was speaking of the Chris Dukes and Chris addresses, whether they be the same man cow or not. Sure, you threw up that annoying lmgtfy reference after he did, but we actually had a conversation. Mr. Dukes made two postings back on the 25th of March, and then he suddenly resurfaces to throw an lmgtfy in my face. (A link I suspect he just learned of from another post.) After my bit of defensive posture he drew silent again. Can you measure that kind of useless noise?? Man Cow Chris (be it the same person or not) made another useless blurb for self-gratification. He even threw in an eat a dick while disarming it at the same time. You did not hint that you even *tried* to contact him, them or whatever. And then you reply to the first response, bitching about what someone helpfully tries to suggest might aid you in finding the author. OK, I'm a shit for poking the bear. But still, you could have just said yeah, I tried that, and haven't heard back, but no, you gotta put him in his place. . . Sheesh. I just didn't find it helpful. More like antagonistic. NULL + NULL + NULL still equals nothing. Properly chastised, I'm going back to lurking. It wasn't really about you.. Sean PS Theo does a *WAY* better job of bitch-slapping me, by the way. But keep trying! Thanks. I suspect Theo is in a position to win many more arguments with one-liners than lil ol me.
Re: licensing
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 05:35:34AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote: Look, You gave no indication if you actually bothered to track down the author or discuss relicensing with the author. Enough people don't think Maybe I should ask the author. You also gave a less than clear indication of I really liked this original implementation, and I'm looking for others interested in re-implementing under less restrictive licensing. So let's drill through things. 1) Did you actually attempt to track down who might be using a umplawny email address at university of manitoba during the time frame? 2) Did you come across the same plawny that is working for EA? 3) Did you actually bother to contact him care of EA (Because when he was hired at EA, he probably had to declare previous work and may or may not have transferred rights to EA). You are the one interested in resurrecting this beast. The onus is you to either track down someone with the right to change the license, or else be the point of first blame in seeing if the author will actually enforce the copyright. If neither appeals to you, then it's time to clearly ask for advice on how to reimplement the behavior in an unencumbered fashion. As for the personal attacks, you can print off this email, fold it until it's all corners, and shove it up your ass. -- Chris Dukes
Re: licensing
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Chris Dukes pak...@pr.neotoma.org wrote: As for the personal attacks, you can print off this email, fold it until it's all corners, and shove it up your ass. Now that was far longer than your first one-liner smackdown. Good job.
Re: licensing
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Chris Dukes pak...@pr.neotoma.org wrote: You are the one interested in resurrecting this beast. The onus is you to either track down someone with the right to change the license, or else be the point of first blame in seeing if the author will actually enforce the copyright. If neither appeals to you, then it's time to clearly ask for advice on how to reimplement the behavior in an unencumbered fashion. Now you've actually said something of benefit to me. Instead of just arguing over google results, and being dickish. I'm not interested in anything else you've had to say, and I will continue to ignore the other bullshit you've thrown around. 1. .. either track down someone with the right to change... Been there.. did it...thanks... 2 ... or else be the point of first blame in seeing if... Now that's what I'm interested in! I don't mind being that lightning rod at all. Thank you for valid information which may resurrect my hopes. So how does that work with OpenBSD? How to I introduce code with shady licensing, and take all the brunt of it?
Re: licensing
* Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com [2010-04-15 17:53]: On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Chris Dukes pak...@pr.neotoma.org wrote: 1. .. either track down someone with the right to change... Been there.. did it...thanks... 2 ... or else be the point of first blame in seeing if... Now that's what I'm interested in! I don't mind being that lightning rod at all. Thank you for valid information which may resurrect my hopes. So how does that work with OpenBSD? How to I introduce code with shady licensing, and take all the brunt of it? find all(!) copyright holders and have them agree to a new license. or don't use that code. -- Henning Brauer, h...@bsws.de, henn...@openbsd.org BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting
Re: licensing
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: So how does that work with OpenBSD? How to I introduce code with shady licensing, and take all the brunt of it? I don't suppose you've stopped to ask if the OpenBSD project is at all interested in whatever code you feel like contributing?
Re: licensing
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: So how does that work with OpenBSD? How to I introduce code with shady licensing, and take all the brunt of it? I don't suppose you've stopped to ask if the OpenBSD project is at all interested in whatever code you feel like contributing? Sorry Ted. I was just continuing with Chris Dukes' own suggestion. I guess it was a half-assed one. I didn't think OpenBSD was even interested in such licensing schemes in the Ports tree. As someone who would know, thanks for clarifying.
Re: licensing
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:41:35 -0600 Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't think OpenBSD was even interested in such licensing schemes in the Ports tree. There's non-free software in the ports tree.
Re: licensing
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:41:35 -0600 Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't think OpenBSD was even interested in such licensing schemes in the Ports tree. There's non-free software in the ports tree. Not in a real sense. The ports tree is a build infrastructure containing Makefiles, lists of files and where they should go, and (in a perfect world, continously shrinking) minimal patches. It does not contain source, per se. There are small code snippets which are _patches_, but the patches are largely of no great consequences. They exist to adapt foreign software to our interfaces, and the idea is that those patches should eventually be fed upsteam, or become unneccesary.
Re: licensing
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Thomas Pfaff tpf...@tp76.info wrote: There's non-free software in the ports tree. Good thing it's in ports, then. Keeps that shady license where we can see it, and choose to suffer with it or not.
Re: licensing
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.dewrote: find all(!) copyright holders and have them agree to a new license. or don't use that code. There are at least three projects involved here. 1. The Diku project 2. The Merc project 3. The Forsaken Lands project The Diku and Merc licenses have no problem fitting in at least at the Ports level. They both ask for citation of ownership, that a specific helpfile be left unmodified, and that no profit is made. They also want notification if you host a mud. Hosting a mud, and simply cleaning the code up for OpenBSD Ports are two different things. I would compare this notify us if you host a mud clause to be comparable to the burden placed upon the user if they wish to install Java packages from Ports. (Like OpenOffice) I already have permission from Diku and Merc authors by their license wording. (previously posted in this thread. Scroll back.) I do NOT have permission from umplawny of the Forsaken Lands project. Now, did umplawny have the original right to put his restricted code into a project that was much more loosely licensed? If he did not, can I use his improperly licensed code (ie. does he forfeit his license by superseding restrictions of the previous license, or by not having permission to modify the source, and add his own?) There's a tricky difference here I'm trying to get at. Either his code must be removed (most likely), or there is a loophole which allows me to circumvent his license in favor of the Diku or Merc licenses. Also, umplawny did not go so far as to create a license file representing his interests. He merely pasted his declaration directly into the source (farther down than the header text) like this: /* NOT TO BE USED OR REPLICATED WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION OF AUTHOR */ Again, this code umplawny introduced is commonly referred to as snippets. It adds features for users and admins alike, but it is not critical to the functioning of the code as it was created by the Diku and Merc teams.
licensing
Hi list. I've spent some time porting one of my favorite dungeon games (a Rom 2.6 derivative). I've only begun this project, but have already converted 1700+ lines as such: strcat - strlcat strcpy - strlcpy sprintf - snprintf Much to my disappointment, I may have to rewrite large portions before I am allowed to share this with the OpenBSD community. Here's why: /* Written by Virigoth sometime circa april 2000 for FORSAKEN LANDS mud.*/ /* This is the implementation of the selectable skills code */ /* NOT TO BE USED OR REPLICATED WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION OF AUTHOR */ /* umpla...@cc.umanitoba.ca */ The above email address is invalid. The mud Forsaken Lands is active, and maintained by different developers who do not own this code, either. Time for me to write OpenMUD?
Re: licensing
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: Time for me to write OpenMUD? I've had fond memories of CircleMud, and I believe the maintainer is still around. -- http://www.glumbert.com/media/shift http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGvHNNOLnCk This officer's men seem to follow him merely out of idle curiosity. -- Sandhurst officer cadet evaluation. Securing an environment of Windows platforms from abuse - external or internal - is akin to trying to install sprinklers in a fireworks factory where smoking on the job is permitted. -- Gene Spafford learn french: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30v_g83VHK4
Re: licensing
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote: /* umpla...@cc.umanitoba.ca */ http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba I think you'll find a good idea of who to write care of which company. -- Chris Dukes
Re: licensing
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Dukes pak...@pr.neotoma.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote: /* umpla...@cc.umanitoba.ca */ http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba I think you'll find a good idea of who to write care of which company. -- Chris Dukes Are you serious? Nice usage of the previously mentioned lmgtfy. You think it's valid information to supply a link that requires I join their database before I have access to the information I am looking for?
Re: licensing
On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Dukes pak...@pr.neotoma.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote: /* umpla...@cc.umanitoba.ca */ http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba I think you'll find a good idea of who to write care of which company. -- Chris Dukes Are you serious? Nice usage of the previously mentioned lmgtfy. You think it's valid information to supply a link that requires I join their database before I have access to the information I am looking for? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=voytek+plawny Yeah, you have to scroll down a little bit b can't help you thereb
Re: licensing
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Sean Kamath kam...@geekoids.com wrote: On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Dukes pak...@pr.neotoma.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote: /* umpla...@cc.umanitoba.ca */ http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba http://lmgtfy.com/?q=voytek+plawny Yeah, you have to scroll down a little bit can't help you there You're going to propagate the absurdity with your own google search? You assume Voytek Plawny is/was umplawny of cc.umanitoba.ca. Go entertain yourself with google searches of Theo and Software, or other commonalities on the 'net. My posting had nothing to do with locating the person(s) mentioned above. That's the greatest absurdity of all shared by you and Orchid man, Chris Dukes. He has a cat to get rid of, if you need one The original issue remains that putting such license wording in your work means that it can never evolve into public domain.
Re: licensing
On Apr 14, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Sean Kamath kam...@geekoids.com wrote: On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Dukes pak...@pr.neotoma.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote: /* umpla...@cc.umanitoba.ca */ http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba http://lmgtfy.com/?q=voytek+plawny Yeah, you have to scroll down a little bit can't help you there You're going to propagate the absurdity with your own google search? You assume Voytek Plawny is/was umplawny of cc.umanitoba.ca. Which is it: you're ticked off the original lmgtfy reply pointed to a pay site, or that we tried to point out if you cared *that* much about finding the original auther, it shouldn't be that hard? Sean
Re: licensing
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Sean Kamath kam...@geekoids.com wrote: Which is it: you're ticked off the original lmgtfy reply pointed to a pay site, or that we tried to point out if you cared *that* much about finding the original auther, it shouldn't be that hard? Sean I reluctantly reply to the entire list, even though you copied me personally... I don't care about finding the original sicauther/sic. He left behind licensing which forbids its application in Open Source. Please tell me what I should do with his permission? At best, he can let me host my own mud with his code. At worst, he must rewrite his entire license in all the associated files.
Re: licensing
On Apr 14, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: Please tell me what I should do with his permission? At best, he can let me host my own mud with his code. At worst, he must rewrite his entire license in all the associated files. Now *that* is an interesting question. As the original author, they should be able to rerelease the original code with a different license or with none at all. And they don't even need to do the work! They could provide someone, perhaps yourself, with a release to make the code free. Otherwise, how would companies that once licensed their code release it under a BSD License (which has happened). Hunting down authors of abandonware can and has been done before. And has also resulted in permission to release the code as open source. So it can very much be a worthwhile endeavor. And sorry for the mispellings before. This time I'm not walking up the stairs to lunchb. And fixing the to/cc line still sucks on mobile devices. Sean
Re: licensing
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Sean Kamath kam...@geekoids.com wrote: On Apr 14, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Chris Dukes pak...@pr.neotoma.org wrote: On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:21:53AM -0600, Ted Roby wrote: /* umpla...@cc.umanitoba.ca */ http://lmgtfy.com/?q=plawny+umanitoba http://lmgtfy.com/?q=voytek+plawny Yeah, you have to scroll down a little bit can't help you there You're going to propagate the absurdity with your own google search? You assume Voytek Plawny is/was umplawny of cc.umanitoba.ca. Go entertain yourself with google searches of Theo and Software, or other commonalities on the 'net. My posting had nothing to do with locating the person(s) mentioned above. That's the greatest absurdity of all shared by you and Orchid man, Chris Dukes. He has a cat to get rid of, if you need one The original issue remains that putting such license wording in your work means that it can never evolve into public domain. You're kidding us, right? You can't bother to google something so basic, you complain when someone points you in the right direction, make a quick detour for a spelling flame, then act like it'd be way more work to email a couple of guys randomly (especially for such an uncommon name from Manitoba) than it would be to re-write something from scratch... And I bet no one has *ever* re-licensed their hobby project so it can breath new life. No need to ask when you can peer into the future. Sean is much more patient than I; after the second round of bullshit you dumped here, I'd have told you to eat a dick. Chris
Re: licensing
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Sean Kamath kam...@geekoids.com wrote: On Apr 14, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: Please tell me what I should do with his permission? At best, he can let me host my own mud with his code. At worst, he must rewrite his entire license in all the associated files. Now *that* is an interesting question. As the original author, they should be able to rerelease the original code with a different license or with none at all. And they don't even need to do the work! They could provide someone, perhaps yourself, with a release to make the code free. Otherwise, how would companies that once licensed their code release it under a BSD License (which has happened). The original author is actually: Diku Mud copyright (C) 1990, 1991 by Sebastian Hammer, Michael Seifert, Hans Henrik Sterfeldt, Tom Madsen, and Katja Nyboe. Their license agreement is in the file 'license.doc'. And their license requirements would still fit in the Ports tree: #begin quote In order to use Merc you must follow the Diku license and our license. The exact terms of the Diku license are in the file 'license.doc'. A summary of these terms is: -- No resale or operation for profit. -- Original author's names must appear in login sequence. -- The 'credits' command must report original authors. -- You must notify the Diku creators that you are operating a Diku mud. Our license terms are: -- Copyrights must remain in original source. -- 'Help merc' must report our help text, as shipped. #end quote However, the author who wrote snippets for new features decided to expressly limit his license even further as such: /* NOT TO BE USED OR REPLICATED WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION OF AUTHOR */ /* umpla...@cc.umanitoba.ca */ Sure... maybe he's had a change of heart in 10 years...
Re: licensing
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Chris amaneating...@gmail.com wrote: You're kidding us, right? You can't bother to google something so basic, you complain when someone points you in the right direction, make a quick detour for a spelling flame, then act like it'd be way more work to email a couple of guys randomly (especially for such an uncommon name from Manitoba) than it would be to re-write something from scratch... And I bet no one has *ever* re-licensed their hobby project so it can breath new life. No need to ask when you can peer into the future. Sean is much more patient than I; after the second round of bullshit you dumped here, I'd have told you to eat a dick. Chris This is your second round of bullshit. I had googled all of this before my first post. In fact, I have been in contact with the current maintainers of the project. They have explicit permission, but that doesn't give me explicit permission. You blew off on this message board assuming I hadn't even googled, or found our friend Voytek Plawny. Why? I guess it made you feel like you were contributing something. Find yourself another target for self-aggrandization. You're still just another monkey on a mailing list.
Re: licensing
On Apr 14, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: You blew off on this message board assuming I hadn't even googled, or found our friend Voytek Plawny. So? Inquiring minds want to know! *Is* he the guy at EA? And more importantly, is he still a dick? Sean
Re: licensing
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Sean Kamath kam...@geekoids.com wrote: On Apr 14, 2010, at 1:16 PM, Ted Roby ted.r...@gmail.com wrote: You blew off on this message board assuming I hadn't even googled, or found our friend Voytek Plawny. So? Inquiring minds want to know! *Is* he the guy at EA? And more importantly, is he still a dick? Sean He may be the Plawny of the New York State Senate. Google results are inconclusive. Personal communique has been ignored.
Re: licensing
On 15/04/2010, at 8:16 AM, Ted Roby wrote: I had googled all of this before my first post. In fact, I have been in contact with the current maintainers of the project. They have explicit permission, but that doesn't give me explicit permission. Ok, now I'm confused. You've been ranting for a while now, but what exactly is your question??? As I read it, you have updates to some code which has an unfriendly license, and you cant contact the licensor to get permission. Is this a fair summary? If so, what does this have to do with us? Further more - if you've been in contact with the current maintainers, who have been in contact with the licensor, cannot they put you in contact? (please don't answer this question - I really dont care what you or they have to say on this. It's rhetorical). Please clarify what you want from this list. paulm
Re: licensing
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Paul M l...@no-tek.com wrote: Please clarify what you want from this list. Peace, Love and Understanding. Yeah right.. I got more help from the first poster who suggested using Circle Mud instead. The problem is, I was quite attached to to this modified Rom code, and perhaps committed the error of getting my hopes up. I didn't post here looking for the author, or asinine tips on how to google him. Duh... The rest of the bitching you heard was in reply to the two NULLs who couldn't properly read my first message. Are you a third? NULL + NULL + NULL still equals nothing.
Re: licensing
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Bryan bra...@gmail.com wrote: I thought nothing was zero, and NUL was the absence of nothing... Wouldn't NULL be the absence of everything, including numerical 0? Dropping the semantics I'd have to say this thread is NULL, and yet it is full of... well, whatever that smell is...
Re: licensing
On Apr 14, 2010, at 8:57 PM, Ted Roby wrote: I got more help from the first poster who suggested using Circle Mud instead. The problem is, I was quite attached to to this modified Rom code, and perhaps committed the error of getting my hopes up. You just weren't sicto to/sic clear in your first post. /dev/null here couldn't figure out if you were just bitching about the idiocy of people's random licenses (and believe me, I've been seeing stupid licenses on code since 1984 on my school's Vax 785 run BSD4.1 -- it's gotten only marginally better), or whining that you couldn't use this super-cool pile of code because you couldn't contact the author. You did not hint that you even *tried* to contact him, them or whatever. And then you reply to the first response, bitching about what someone helpfully tries to suggest might aid you in finding the author. OK, I'm a shit for poking the bear. But still, you could have just said yeah, I tried that, and haven't heard back, but no, you gotta put him in his place. . . Sheesh. NULL + NULL + NULL still equals nothing. Properly chastised, I'm going back to lurking. Sean PS Theo does a *WAY* better job of bitch-slapping me, by the way. But keep trying! PPS Normally I avoid poking fun at people's typos and misspellings. But since turnabout is fair play. . .
Re: Licensing Help
Benjamin Adams wrote on Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 02:21:31PM -0400: I'm looking for some clarification on Licensing. I'm looking to build a product using: OpenBSD MySQL Note that the MySQL client libraries are licenced under the GPL, not under the LGPL, with an explicit exception from the GPL allowing to link them against non-GPL FLOSS programs. This GPL+FLOSS exception scheme does look scary to me, there are heaps of legalese language, do ask you lawyer to make sure you understand all that. You are not allowed to link the MySQL = 4.0 client libraries against non-FLOSS code; see the following, already pretty old rationale provided by a MySQL guy: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql/120620 David Axmark, September 25, 2002 [...] We can still make exceptions and allow free use if there is a good reason for it (But not for I like to make money without freeing my code or paying you like reasons). So the goal is to get money out of the people who distribute non OpenSource application using MySQL. [...] I definitely know of one company having switched a closed-source product from MySQL to PostgreSQL for that very reason. Tomcat Java I don't know anything about these two. I know OpenBSD is do what you want. That statement is utterly wrong. Very little of OpenBSD is in the public domain. Make sure you really understand what you may and may not do with which part of OpenBSD. You seem rather hasty regarding licensing, which is quite dangerous. Anyone know what sun says for licensing? If you want to sell a product involving GPL stuff, don't rely on advice given by random people on mailing lists, like me. Instead, ask your lawyer. (Flame bait, don't respond to the following two lines.) Effectively, that's want the GPL is mostly doing, whatever its intentions might be: Prevent starvation of software lawyers. (End off trolling, SCNR.) Anyone know what I would have to do for Sun to let me do this? As far as i understand, you must make some contract with some MySQL company and pay them something. Figure it out. :-( or is they don't care just create and sell? Definitely not. They do care. By the way, OpenBSD people also care what you do with OpenBSD, and if you don't pay attention, chances are you will violate various OpenBSD copyrights and license conditions, too.
Licensing Help
I'm looking for some clarification on Licensing. I'm looking to build a product using: OpenBSD Tomcat MySQL Java I know OpenBSD is do what you want. Anyone know what sun says for licensing? I'm looking to sell this product for profit which will help me give back to OpenBSD :) Anyone know what I would have to do for Sun to let me do this? or is they don't care just create and sell? I'm looking for any help I can get on this topic. Maybe someone at sun that I can talk to that would help me. Thanks!!!
Re: Licensing Help
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Benjamin Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking for some clarification on Licensing. I'm looking to build a product using: OpenBSD Tomcat MySQL Java I know OpenBSD is do what you want. Anyone know what sun says for licensing? I'm looking to sell this product for profit which will help me give back to OpenBSD :) Anyone know what I would have to do for Sun to let me do this? or is they don't care just create and sell? I'm looking for any help I can get on this topic. Maybe someone at sun that I can talk to that would help me. Thanks!!! It's probably best to go to each product's web site, or their tarballs, and look for a license document. I believe MySQL and Java are GNU GPLv2, but I'm not sure, you're best to look for that as well. Also note that not *all* of OpenBSD is the BSD-spirit license. For example, GCC is under the GNU GPL (though depending on your product, you can get away with no compiler set); you will need to make sure that these components' licenses are obeyed as well.
Re: About C++ and licensing on OpenBSD
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 12:50:04AM -0400, Ernesto Bascon wrote: Hi everybody: I do not want to start a flamewar about licensing and hope some concrete answers to my questions (maybe I seem aggressive, I am not at all :) ). I want to develop an OpenBSD specific set of libraries, implementing it on C++ and using the LGPL or the Classpath::License licenses for my code (both are almost identical). Well, I will be the initial owner of my code and I can do (again, initially) anything with it, but: 1. Is there some policy on OpenBSD encouraging or discouraging the use of C++ for OpenBSD specific applications? (several opensource projects prefer C over any language and discourage using C++; is that the case for OpenBSD?) 2. OpenBSD is known as a very anti-GPL project... so, what would be the OpenBSD position on front of some LGPL code implemented specifically for OpenBSD? If you ever want OpenBSD to include your code, use BSD/C, or perhaps BSD/Perl. Otherwise, do whatever you like. Joachim -- TFMotD: tun (4) - network tunnel pseudo-device
Microsoft Volume Licensing Acknowledgement (KMM8004423I3516L0KM)
Your message addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been received. If you are an MSDN Administrator and would like assistance using our online, self-help resources, please visit http://msdn.microsoft.com/subscriptions/administration/. If your message is of an urgent nature please feel free to call us at 1-866-230-0560 in the United States and Canada. Our hours of operation are 5:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. USA-PST, Monday through Friday. Please reference message # 3390799 for any additional support on this query.
Intel and Open Source Licensing w/r/t the OpenBSD Operating System
Dear Mr. Awad: As a recent purchaser of a brand-new Intel 965 motherboard with Core 2 Duo chip I am very pleased with the product, but disappointed with news from my favorite Open Source community, the OpenBSD community (http://www.openbsd.org) that Intel's licensing schemes fall short of the needs of that community. I cannot pretend to be fully conversant with the matters at dispute, but as a longtime (20 yrs +) Open Source author and occasional contributor to OpenBSD, I hope that your organization will give full and careful consideration to any concerns raised by the very experienced, talented and trustworthy OpenBSD principals. Sincerely, Jack J. Woehr -- Jack J. Woehr Director of Development Absolute Performance, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 303-443-7000 ext. 527
Intel and Licensing
Dear Mr. Awad. It has come to my attention, yet again, that intel, despite its claims of being Open Source friendly, is again failing to produce pertient API information for its products and restrictive licencing, terms and conditions. This goes against the whole priciple of open source in all its forms and unfortunately, I no longer purchase your products or recommend them to anyone else and will continue to use other suppliers until you change this policy. As you are probably aware, there are several open source products e.g. Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD and others. Further, there are different licenses ie. BSD, Apache, GPL etc. Despite the different licencing policies, all the open source projects need the same thing. The key component is that source should be open. If you can't provide source then API's have to be open (no licencing, agreements, restrictions etc.) so they can write efficient and reliable drivers for your products, which I should note, is a free service to your company. In the case of OpenBSD, one of the most efficient and secure OS's, below is an outake from their policy page, which you should take the time to read in full. http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html Because the OpenBSD copyright imposes no conditions beyond those imposed by the Berkeley copyright, OpenBSD can hope to share the same wide distribution and applicability as the Berkeley distributions. It follows however, that OpenBSD cannot include material which includes copyrights which are more restrictive than the Berkeley copyright, or must relegate this material to a secondary status, i.e. OpenBSD as a whole is freely redistributable, but some optional components may not be. A number of applications have been culled from OpenBSD because of licensing issues. A lot of people on different projects do a lot of work getting intel products to work, for very little thanks and usually no money. Do NOT make it harder for them than it already is and do NOT squander the good will of the open source community as they are IT professionals with a large networking base and you will rapidly find your products being rejected at companies and data centers, which is something neither you, your management or your shareholders will appreciate in the long run. I hope you, as a company, will take the time to learn what the open source community needs and expects, and will create a consistent and open framework that meets ALL their needs. When this happens, I will gladly reconsider the purchase and recommendation of intel products. -- Regards...Martin
Re: Intel and Licensing
marrandy wrote on Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 11:56:44AM -0400: [...] The key component is that source should be open. If you can't provide source then API's have to be open In similar arguments, it might even be better to argue just the other way round: Please provide hardware and firmware documentation. Just in case you have no docs for you product (ps?!?!), then, but only as a second best, please provide driver source code in order to at least simplify reverse engineering for the *BSD kernel developers. But don't take that as an excuse to refrain from properly documenting your product!
Future licensing trouble for Sendmail
No, this isn't another Sendmail needs to be replaced because there was a security hole email. I was following the thread on BugTraq regarding the Sendmail vulnerability, and saw this from Theo (Mar 24 2006): Luckily within a few months you will be able to tell Sendmail how to disclose their bugs because their next version is going to come out with a much more commercial licence. Then you can pay for it, and then you can complain too. Is this a hint that there might be a license issues that would cause problems with OpenBSD, or am I reading too much into that statement? -- Will
Re: Future licensing trouble for Sendmail
Luckily within a few months you will be able to tell Sendmail how to disclose their bugs because their next version is going to come out with a much more commercial licence. Then you can pay for it, and then you can complain too. Is this a hint that there might be a license issues that would cause problems with OpenBSD, or am I reading too much into that statement? If the new sendmail comes out with a more restrictive licence than the current one, we will not be able to move to it, but will have to stay with the current codebase, which at this point will be the only free-enough mail server. We have already expressed our concerns to them. Please don't let this degenerate into a discussion of mail server choices. Whoever you are, you won't know all the concerns we have to face.
