Subject: Re: copyright issue
To: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: Justin T. Gibbs <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 06/14/1997 16:02:22
>On Sat, 14 Jun 1997 11:52:47 -0600
> "Justin T. Gibbs" <email@example.com> wrote:
> > This makes little difference in my mind. The NetBSD Foundation
> > chose to accept the waiver instead of complying. If the license
> > is so fair as to "only require credit where credit is due" (as has
>Justin, as I said before, please stop make random assertions unless you
>know the facts. You have no idea how the waiver is worded, so you are,
>quite honestly, pumping smoke, here.
Quoting a message from Chris to this list:
>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.)
Seeing as this came from the author of both the license and the
(future?) waiver that affects the NetBSD Foundation, I can only assume
that this is acurate. Sure, I don't know exactly what Chris means by
a 'standard' berkeley license, but I have a pretty good idea.
More to my point, is the NetBSD Foundation going to comply with the letter
of the license as it stands now? I said and implied nothing more than that
core decided to allow into the tree a license that will not apply to the
>The NetBSD Foundation does intend to give credit where credit is due,
>as we have always tried in good faith to do. Suggesting otherwise
>is just silly.
I didn't suggest that it doesn't. What I actually said was:
>If the license is so fair as to "only require credit where credit is due"
>(as has been repeatedly asserted on this list), it seems contrary to the to
>the spirit of the project to not credit its contributors in the fashion
>they desire if it is feasible, under the original license terms, to do so.
Basically, if the terms are reasonable enough to be included in the tree,
why can't the NetBSD Foundation, which should be interested in providing
"credit to its contributors *in the fashion they desire*" also comply with
Remeber that "where credit is due" and "credit in the fashion the
contributor desires" are two very different things. The first can be
skewed by personal interpretation. The second cannot.
>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
Justin T. Gibbs
FreeBSD: Turning PCs into workstations