Subject: Re: More licensing flames...
To: None <>
From: Christos Zoulas <>
List: current-users
Date: 09/23/1998 09:55:14
In article <> (Chris G. Demetriou) writes:
> writes:
>> I'm just curious about this, because I'd never noticed it before, and
>> it really looks fairly similar to some of the terms of the Sleepycat
>> license agreement...  Is this okay just because most programs don't
>> have a solid dependancy on file(1), or what?
>Presumably, yes.  However, it should be segregated from the rest of
>the code base, just like other code with licenses like that.
>I think 'cron' is another example, btw.  indeed, depending on how
>strictly you want to interpret its license, we may not even be obeying
>it.  (we don't mark our individual changes, but then, we have market
>the files with our RCS Ids.)

I spoke to Ian before he passed over the maintainance of file(1) to me.
I vaguely remember that he gave me permission to redistribute it so that
it could be distributed with 4.4BSD and Lite under a standard berkeley
copyright, but I am not sure. Does anyone know how to reach him so I
can verify that?