Subject: Re: Licensing constraints...?????
To: Bill Studenmund <email@example.com>
From: Jim Wise <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/28/1997 16:43:56
On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Bill Studenmund wrote:
> 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.
What if we simply hacked it to _always_ include the license for the
file. This would require license delimiters in files, but we should
probably have those anyhow -- In my free time, I've been working on a
license collector for the NetBSD tree, which would also benefit greatly
from standardized license delimiters. (and is something we really need,
anyhow). The only other downside is that CTM messages would be larger
this way, but not tremendously so...