Subject: Re: copyright questions
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Wolfgang Solfrank <email@example.com>
Date: 06/13/1997 20:56:53
> I don't specifically remember what went on with 1.0, and don't have
> easy source tree access to check, right now.
Well, I still have available the discussion between you and myself about
the Legal Mumbo-Jumbo in 1.0. The discussion took place a few days after the
release of 1.0 (because I didn't look into the docs before), and you
specifically mentioned that there wasn't a requirement to include all
contributors in that file, because the release announcement wasn't
advertising material and it didn't mention all the parts of NetBSD
specifically. I could argue that that was a violation of the spirit of
the copyright message.
> (1) I made a good faith effort to include all of the appropriate
> attribution strings (i.e. "This product contains software written by
> ...") in the release documentation. If I missed a few, that's
> unfortunate. However, I really did try to include all of them.
I don't think so. The release documentation included only a subset of
I don't want to sound rude, and I'm happy (more or less) with your new
license, but it looks to me as if your attitude regarding this has changed
a bit since then.
PS: I can make available your original answer if you give permission.
ws@TooLs.DE (Wolfgang Solfrank, TooLs GmbH) +49-228-985800