Subject: Re: Last chance: Copyrights is OK ?
To: matthew green <email@example.com>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/08/1999 23:16:10
matthew green <email@example.com> writes:
> i strongly suggest that TNF restrict new code in the tree to either
> their own license, the GPV for necessary code, or ucb-no-clause-3
> licenses like mine, so that we can reduce that 18000 lines to some
> very much smaller figure.
that 18000 lines was not caused by clause 3.
that 18000 lines was caused by clause 2.
basically, you can split hairs about what consitutes documentation
(man pages not good enough? RTFS, it's part of the documentation 8-),
about what constitutes "other materials provided with the
distribution" (what is a separate binary and source distribution
accessible from the same web page?), or you can do the safe thing and
supply the riculous amount of notice text... if you have relatively
deep pockets, you only have one real choice.
I actually got Digital to do approximately the right thing by the
project, for the code they released. basically, there's no equivalent
to _either_ clause 2 or clause 3 of the BSD license.
Chris Demetriou - firstname.lastname@example.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.