Subject: Re: Licensing constraints...?????
To: Mason Loring Bliss <email@example.com>
From: Bill Studenmund <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/28/1997 13:10:57
On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Mason Loring Bliss wrote:
> On 8/28/97 at 9:42 AM -0300, you wrote:
> > I don't think this is law. I believe it's an attempt to abide by the
> > license requirement to distribute the license with any code covered by it.
> Just out of curiosity... What code is covered by the license in question?
> I'm just wondering if reimplementing the functionality would be worthwhile
> or not...
If the problem's what I think it is (which it might not be!), it's that,
with CTM & NO base source files, you could get a file (or large pieces)
w/o the original copyright (since it's not changing, there aren't diffs on
it). Lookaing at sys/kern/init_main.c, in the BSD copyright, item 1 is:
* 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
* notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
I think it's the one in question. If so, I think every file's covered.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
I think we can get into hair splitting, as to whether or not CTM's
distributing source code or it's distributing how to change one version of
a source code file to another. Some folks will probably think I'm silly,
and that it's obviously source code. Others might not. The thing is that
it's a gray area, which can be great fodder for lawers to gobble up.
I think CTM would be fine in a setup like I described in another message;
you have to state that you have the source code & that you will abide by
its copyrights to get CTM service, and each message reminds the recipient
that it contains UPDATES to source code, that he or she is subject to the
copyright & licensing restrictions of the file even though it is not in
the message, and that the recipient AGREED he or she's subject to these
restrictions when s/he subscribed.