Re: FAQ 3.3 - suggested copyright clarification diff

[Janne Johansson]

2015-12-20 19:11 GMT+01:00 Tati Chevron :

> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 06:24:26PM +0100, ropers wrote:
>
>> But if I want to make my own bootable Blu-ray disc, for a single
>> architecture,
>>
> using the files on the discs I purchased, is it necessary, for example,
> to master it with the distribution files in a different location other than
> /5.8/amd64 , in order to make 'the CD layout' different?  Or is the fact
> that it's on a different type of optical media sufficient?
>
> Where is the line drawn?
>

You can pay a court room of legal professionals to figure that out. 8-/
Same goes for code, if you change a bit here and there, when is it your
code and not the original one? No simple answer there.

-- 
May the most significant bit of your life be positive.

Re: FAQ 3.3 - suggested copyright clarification diff

[Tati Chevron]

On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 06:24:26PM +0100, ropers wrote:

Rationale: It is a still surprisingly common misunderstanding that
permissively licensed software wasn't copyrighted. Regardless of license
choice (BSD, MIT, ISC, GPL, MS-EULA, etc.), software that is not in the
public domain remains protected by copyright. Thus the claim that *only*
the CD layout was copyrighted is factually incorrect. However, OpenBSD,
though copyrighted, is freely (or permissively) licensed -- and therefore
not substantially *restricted* by its copyright.


You are right that the original wording is technically incorrect, (although
most people familiar with permissive software licenses would probably
understand the intended message).

What is also unclear, (at least to me), is what exactly, 'the CD layout',
means.

Obviously, a sector by sector copy of any of the offical discs from the
3-CD set would duplicate, 'the CD layout'.

But if I want to make my own bootable Blu-ray disc, for a single architecture,
using the files on the discs I purchased, is it necessary, for example,
to master it with the distribution files in a different location other than
/5.8/amd64 , in order to make 'the CD layout' different?  Or is the fact
that it's on a different type of optical media sufficient?

Where is the line drawn?

--
Tati Chevron
Perl and FORTRAN specialist.
SWABSIT development and migration department.
http://www.swabsit.com

FAQ 3.3 - suggested copyright clarification diff

[ropers]

For http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq3.html :

--- faq3.html.orig2015-12-20 17:13:16.688175000 +0100
+++ faq3.html2015-12-20 17:16:37.529726012 +0100
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@
 official OpenBSD CDs.  As an incentive for people to buy the CD set, some
 extras are included in the package as well (artwork, stickers etc).
 
-Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free.
+Note that only the CD layout is copyright-restricted, OpenBSD itself is
freely licensed.
 Nothing precludes someone else from downloading OpenBSD and making their
 own CD.


Rationale: It is a still surprisingly common misunderstanding that
permissively licensed software wasn't copyrighted. Regardless of license
choice (BSD, MIT, ISC, GPL, MS-EULA, etc.), software that is not in the
public domain remains protected by copyright. Thus the claim that *only*
the CD layout was copyrighted is factually incorrect. However, OpenBSD,
though copyrighted, is freely (or permissively) licensed -- and therefore
not substantially *restricted* by its copyright.

Alternatively, this belt-and-suspenders diff might be even clearer, albeit
wordier:

--- faq3.html.orig2015-12-20 17:13:16.688175000 +0100
+++ faq3.html2015-12-20 18:19:07.288248875 +0100
@@ -103,9 +103,9 @@
 official OpenBSD CDs.  As an incentive for people to buy the CD set, some
 extras are included in the package as well (artwork, stickers etc).
 
-Note that only the CD layout is copyrighted, OpenBSD itself is free.
+Note that only the copyrighted CD layout is commercially
restricted; the copyrighted OpenBSD software itself is permissively
licensed and thus freely redistributable.
 Nothing precludes someone else from downloading OpenBSD and making their
-own CD.
+own CDs for themselves (though not for unlicensed distribution if
significantly similar or identical to an official set). OpenBSD's licensing
does allow you redistribute the software, so long as you do not infringe
upon the CD layout copyright. Verifying and ensuring non-infringement in
such a case might be another good reason to purchase a CD set.

 
 Those that need or want a bootable USB drive can use the