Subject: Re: copyright questions
To: Justin T. Gibbs <>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <>
List: current-users
Date: 06/13/1997 10:44:04
> A brief look at shows that many pages do not conform to 
> CGD's new license.  From what I understand of clause 2, almost every page
> on the site should include the following:
> 	This product includes software developed by
> 	Christopher G. Demetriou for the NetBSD Project.
> If the license is to be enforced, it should be enforced unilaterally.

Remember the bit about "If you have a special need for a change in one
or more of these license conditions"?

I have informed The NetBSD Foundation that they will be granted an
exception, that I will get them the appropriate paperwork RSN
(hopefully today or tomorrow).  Getting the paperwork to them has been
delayed by the fact that i'm currently living in two states.  8-)

That's going to let them distribute my software following the terms of
the 'standard' berkeley license, rather than my new license.  (Note
that the code will still include the normal license, but will be
distributable by NetBSD under a more 'standard' Berkeley license.)

Given that that's going to happen, and is going to happen soon, it
would be unreasonable for them to request that they change their web

Note that the "distribute with a different license than is on the
code" is not actually uncommon.  Apparently (according to either
Bostic or McKusick; i forget which), CMU had a similar arrangement
with Berkeley: Berkeley was not required to include CMU's who
copyright notice in with their documentation, but third parties
redistributing berkeley's code _were_ (by the license terms on the
file).  I'm not _sure_ that that's true, but that's what I was told
when i pointed out the fact that various BSD documentation (e.g. the
ORA books) didn't include the appropriate CMU license text.  8-)