[ On Monday, September 13, 1999 at 15:48:42 (-0700), Chuck McManis wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: what happened to the lm75(?) driver?
>
> And in Greg's copyright he can write (proposed):
> 
> 	3. Anyone incorporating this software directly into their
> 	   product must provide the following acknowledgement
> 	   in the documentation that is distributed with that 
> 	   product.
> 		"Portions of this software were contributed by Greg Woods"
> 
> The important legal bit here is the word "directly". It is a "direct"
> inclusion for TNFi to put Greg's driver into the source tree, therefore
> they are bound by his clause, it is an "indirect" inclusion for a 
> third party to compile NetBSD and install it on their platform. They
> are therefore not bound by this term.

Sans the fact that somone compiling, installing, and executing NetBSD is
*not* "using" the software in the sense one "uses" a copyright.  Only a
third-party producer of an independent distribution sold for profit, or
a company including the software on a product sold for profit, is
"using" the software in the copyright sense.  Anyone who legally obtains
a legitimate copy of the software can freely compile, install, and
execute the software for any purpose whatsoever (including as part of a
service that makes a profit) without violating any sane copyright law,
*even* if the license attempts to include clauses which prohibit
providing a service for profit.  Indeed under at least Canadian law
anyone with a legally obtained legitimate copy may freely make private
backup copies of the software without even violating the intent of the
law.  But this is all a side topic to the main issue!  ;-)
 
> So if Greg can re-cast his copyright so that it only burdens people
> who directly include his software, and those burdens are not onerous
> to TNFi, can we move ahead and get back to coding?

I thought my clause requiring an acknowledgment effectively said the
same thing, though admittedly without using the term "direct(ly)":

 * 3. The following acknowledgement must appear in printed documentation
 * accompanying a physical distribution of a collective work including
 * this software, and must appear in an ASCII file accompanying an
 * electronic distribution of a collective work including this software:
 *
 *      This product includes software developed by Greg A. Woods.

How about the following:

 * 3. The following acknowledgement must appear in printed documentation
 * accompanying a physical distribution of a collective work directly
 * including this software, and must appear in an ASCII file
 * accompanying an electronic distribution of a collective work directly
 * including this software:
 *
 *      This product includes software developed by Greg A. Woods.

(I do like to be very explicit, and perhaps overly verbose, in such
legal documents....)

("electronic distribution" is probably an inaccurate phrase but is one
I think I've cribbed from the Canadian Copyright Act to carry the intent
of any machine-only readable distribution)

Note that my second clause is easily fulfilled by any re-distributor if
they simply include the source in the distribution, or even if they just
include the header files in a binary-only distribution.  I don't see any
reason to water it down.

-- 
							Greg A. Woods

+1 416 218-0098      VE3TCP      <gwoods@acm.org>      <robohack!woods>
Planix, Inc. <woods@planix.com>; Secrets of the Weird <woods@weird.com>