Subject: Re: [email@example.com: Re: bash]
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Simon Burge <email@example.com>
Date: 03/28/2001 13:52:33
Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Matthias Buelow wrote:
> > Of course there's the licence
> > issue, it looks halfway liberal (in my understanding, it boils down
> > to ATT giving you the source and you're free to use and redistribute
> > it as long as you feedback any modification you make to the original,
> > or at least make it available, apart from stuff you only link against
> > it of course, but I am not a lawyer.)
> I read the license for "ksh" as single use, no redistribution. (But,
> there are other utilities on AT&T's site with more GNUish terms.) We
> could possibly still have a package where the user has to supply the
> distfile, i.e, go to the web page, agree to the license, and download
> it by hand, as for "opera" and "staroffice".
From my reading, we can redistribute binaries. Here's the relevent
If you prepare a Derived Product, such product shall
conspicuously display to users, and any corresponding
documentation and license agreement shall include as a
provision, the Proprietary Notice.
My take on this is that if the licence file was shown on a pkg_add (is
that possible currently) and installed somewhere ($PREFIX/share/ksh?)
then all should be fine.
That same clause would seem to indicate that we can't replace the
current /bin/ksh with AT&T ksh, since we have no way of "conspicuously
display"ing to users licences for individual programs.
Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NetBSD CDs, Support and Service: http://www.wasabisystems.com/