Subject: Re: Pre-new-cgd-license tree?
To: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
Date: 07/07/1997 12:01:01
On Sun, 6 Jul 1997, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
: > I can only assume that core concluded that this license is acceptable
: > to them. [ ... ]
: However, in the time since that "kafuffle," they've done almost
: nothing to resolve the issue.
: One member of core has been so unconstructive as to make various snide
: comments about my license, but not actually do anything that i'm aware
: of to help resolve the situation.
I'm not in core, but as a helpful hand I'd like to suggest changes, just
because the license seems a bit, er, restrictive to me as well.
* Copyright Notice:
* Copyright (c) 1995, 1996, 1997
* Christopher G. Demetriou. All rights reserved.
* This License applies to this software ("Software"), created
* by Christopher G. Demetriou ("Author").
* You may use, copy, modify and redistribute this Software without
* charge, in either source code form, binary form, or both, on the
* following conditions:
Drum roll, please. :)
* 1. (a) Binary code: (i) a complete copy of the above copyright notice
* must be included within each copy of the Software in binary code form,
* and (ii) a complete copy of the above copyright notice and all terms
* of this License as presented here must be included within each copy of
* all documentation accompanying or associated with binary code, in any
* medium, along with a list of the software modules to which the license
(i) is problematic. First off, the copyright text block, provided in a
binary, is just fluff; few people actually 'strings' their binaries to look
at copyright notices. Plus, where in this source code is this requirement
fulfilled as the source currently stands? I suggest to strike this, since
(ii) sounds fine to me; every product based on NetBSD can have a
documentation "Acknowledgments" section that lists everything documented
here. Since "Software" does not necessarily mean "this particular source
code module," but could be interpreted "the completed product," every
license of this type in the source tree could be lumped together in such a
documentation section. This is similar to the 'standard' Berkeley license.
* (b) Source Code: A complete copy of the above copyright notice and all
* terms of this License as presented here must be included within: (i)
* each copy of the Software in source code form, and (ii) each copy of
* all accompanying or associated documentation, in any medium.
(i) is already done; this notice is here. (ii) is basically the same as
* 2. The following Acknowledgment must be used in communications
* involving the Software as described below:
* This product includes software developed by
* Christopher G. Demetriou for the NetBSD Project.
* The Acknowledgment must be conspicuously and completely displayed
* whenever the Software, or any software, products or systems containing
* the Software, are mentioned in advertising, marketing, informational
* or publicity materials of any kind, whether in print, electronic or
* other media (except for information provided to support use of
* products containing the Software by existing users or customers).
Here's the big dispute, as I have seen it. This should be stricken
completely, IMHO. With 1(a)(ii) and 1(b)(ii), acknowledgment is given, and
this section makes the following example situations very problematic if any
other persons start to use the same license:
- Commercial product. "This firewall software is based on NetBSD. This
product includes software developed by [insert N names here that use this
license] for the NetBSD Project." Tedious, to say the least, and possibly
annoying enough to make such a commercial product unwanted.
- Public distribution. Do I really want to load a 50K list of people's
names just to see the NetBSD home page? By these terms, that's how it would
Have To Be.
* 3. The name of the Author may not be used to endorse or promote
* products derived from this Software without specific prior written
* permission (conditions (1) and (2) above are not considered
* endorsement or promotion).
Well, this is a little contradictory. Section (2) sounds, to a commercial
product customer, as endorsement. If your name is there in the advertising
or communication from the vendor, it looks like you're endorsing the
product; you developed software for it, right? If (2) is stricken, making
this only reference (1) is fine.
* 4. This license applies to: (a) all copies of the Software, whether
* partial or whole, original or modified, and (b) your actions, and the
* actions of all those who may act on your behalf. All uses not
* expressly permitted are reserved to the Author.
Sounds like a typical commercial product license. Okay.
* 5. Disclaimer. THIS SOFTWARE IS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE AUTHOR TO THE
* PUBLIC FOR FREE AND "AS IS.'' ALL USERS OF THIS FREE SOFTWARE ARE
* SOLELY AND ENTIRELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN CHOICE AND USE OF THIS
* SOFTWARE FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES. BY USING THIS SOFTWARE, EACH USER
* AGREES THAT THE AUTHOR SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES OF ANY KIND IN
* RELATION TO ITS USE OR PERFORMANCE.
Sounds like the Berkeley license. Next.
* 6. If you have a special need for a change in one or more of these
* license conditions, please contact the Author via electronic mail to
* or via the contact information on
Okie, all done. Comments?
== Todd Vierling (Personal firstname.lastname@example.org; Business email@example.com) Foo-bar-baz! ==
== System administrator/technician, Internet Access Group, Orlando Florida ==
== Dialups in Orange, Volusia, Lake, Osceola counties - http://www.iag.net ==