Subject: Re: sendmail licensing again
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <>
From: Greg A. Woods <>
List: current-users
Date: 12/11/1998 15:58:11
[ On Fri, December 11, 1998 at 15:21:00 (-0500), Todd Vierling wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: sendmail licensing again
> : Someone simply uses a script to maintain a list of GPL-ed files:
> : 
> : 	cd /usr/src
> : 	find . -print | xargs grep -ni 'free software foundation' |
> : 		awk -F: '{print $1}' | sort -u > share/misc/gnu-src.list
> Not all GPL'd software has this phrase, but that's rather moot.  What this
> won't catch is the `modifications' - which includes our build mechanisms for
> this source.

Thats' why I suggested that a more concrete tag line be added to all
sources, perhaps by the *2netbsd script that copies the files into
place, or perhaps by hand, whichever whomever thinks is easier.

Also, I think it's only fair to put the build mechanism under GPL too,
esp. since it should be distributed with the GPL-ed sources anyway.

(but even if you don't copyright the build system with GPL, you can
still put the same tag line in the makefiles and scripts....)

> Again, though, what do you *gain* by doing this convoluted command instead
> of putting the stuff together, since a vendor needs to grab that *bundle*
> anyway?

That simple one-line script or makefile target could be run by NetBSD
developers on occasion, and certainly before a release is tagged, and
the result could be included in the final tagged release.

However unless some NetBSD developer is also a binary vendor (as some
currently are), doing this on behalf of the binary vendors is purely a
courtesy, and I can bet you that any with a legal staff will want to
double check the list/sub-tree/etc. anyway as they won't trust the
NetBSD developers to have made a 100% accurate list (except perhaps in
the case where said developer is an employee of the binary vendor).

I.e. I'm OK with (though not a strong supporter of) the generic goal of
providing a system that can be used by binary-only vendors, but I don't
think full integration of contributed source should be avoided just to
make their lives totally trivial, especially when there are many
adequate alternate approaches they can take to solving *their* copyright

> It's pretty easy to see that this command is more difficult than a plain
> "tar" of a directory, and has to be kept up to date whereas a directory
> maintains itself.

The vendor (as I've said, what, a dozen times now?) simply types:

	pax -wzf gnusrc.tar.gz < share/misc/gnu-src-files

If that's really too difficult for your average vendor to comprehend
then you make a little one-line target in the top-level makefile that
does this for them and they simply type:

	make gnu-src.tar.gz

or something similarly benign and thought-free.

Those developers with more than two neurons firing could add that target
or command to their final "make ship" or similar command/script.

> : Personally when I distribute a customized copy of NetBSD to a customer
> : in return for fees I make *all* the source available to them, GPL-ed or
> : not.
> That's not necessarily the case for other vendors - and there are more than
> you probably realize.

Yeah, I know not all vendors are as nice as we are!  ;-)

but as yet nobody's published any reports as to how many non-nice
vendors there really are out there....

							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <>; Secrets of the Weird <>