Subject: Re: copyright questions
To: Phil Knaack <email@example.com>
From: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/12/1997 18:40:19
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:14:35 -0500
"Phil Knaack" <email@example.com> wrote:
[ I've been busy today, and have not had a chance to address anything
on this thread yet... I will make an official statement later, but
right now I just want to address a few things, here... ]
> This is why I feel that, as good as this is for you, this damages
> NetBSD. Why? Because even though you have written this code, you did
> give this code to NetBSD. This document seems to convey that you should
> be treated differently than other people who have written code for NetBSD,
> as noone else has a copyright this encompassing. Almost as if ... you wish
...this statement, quite frankly, is ridiculous. For one, there is another
copyright/license in the tree similar to this one, bearing the name of
Jonathan Stone. Secondly, so far, Chris is the only developer who has
discussed this with Core. Just because he's the only one so far that
has wanted to do this doesn't mean he is being treated "differently"
or "special". If that were the case, Core would not have rejected the
first several drafts of the new license.
> to be considered separate from NetBSD -- here is NetBSD over here, supporting
> N-1 architectures developed by M-1 developers, and there is NetBSD/alpha over
> there, developed by Chris. You can distribute NetBSD using policy X, but
> if you distribute or use code from NetBSD/alpha, you had better be using
> policy Y, lest you face punishment.
Obviously, you haven't looked around the tree, much. Chris's copyright
and license terms are on more than just the Alpha port.
It's worth noting that it has _always_ been that case that there are
some files in NetBSD that have copyright/license terms that are different
from the stock Berkeley license. Every file that says:
This product contains software developed by <insert name here>.
...is different, for different values of <insert name here>.
...then there are the files that have the CMU Mach copyright/license.
They are also different.
My point is, it has _always_ been the case that there are different
licenses that apply to different files in the source tree.
The NetBSD organization has been making an effort to get folks to
assign copyright to The NetBSD Foundation, Inc. (much like the FSF
has contributors assign copyright to GNU software). This helps to
minimize the license differences that you encounter in the tree.
But, this isn't always as speedy process. And, if a contributor does
not wish to assign copyright, they are not obligated to.
Jason R. Thorpe firstname.lastname@example.org
NASA Ames Research Center Home: 408.866.1912
NAS: M/S 258-6 Work: 415.604.0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035 Pager: 415.428.6939