Subject: Re: what happened to the lm75(?) driver?
To: Greg A. Woods <>
From: Charles M. Hannum <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 09/13/1999 15:04:16
I was trying to ignore this discussion, but this part is just a bit
too much:

> Hmmmm....  sounds a lot hypocritical to me.  TNF must protect its name
> but doesn't want anyone else to protect theirs.

That's fallacious.

What TNFi wants to do is have the 3rd party contributors assign their
copyrights to TNFi, and include in the TNFi `advertising' clause a
reference to a complete list of such assigned contributions.  I.e.:

 * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
 *    must display the following acknowledgement:
 *      This product includes software developed by the NetBSD Foundation,
 *	Inc. and its contributors.  For a list of contributors, see:

The goal here was/is to provide a reference to all of the contributors
any time a piece of NetBSD code is used anywhere, and not to burden
third parties with 1000 different attributions.  This would seem to
solve the various issues that people have voiced, and to actually
provide *more* recognition.

Unfortunately, the TNFi so-called secretary has *still* not provided
me with a list of assignments received.  That's why this wasn't done
in time for

>> In addition, when the advertising clause gets violated, it has been
>> up to the copyright holders to protect their copyrights. In all
>> cases so far - except from the occasional e-mail flamewar - there
>> has been no legal followup.

TNFi *cannot* enforce someone else's copyright.  The most TNFi can do
in such a case is notify the copyright holder and the alleged violator
that there appears to be a problem.  But TNFi does not have resources
it can throw at monitoring every piece of software on the net.