Rolf Braun wrote:
> >On Wed, 13 May 1998, Rolf Braun wrote:
> >> And what about the following text controls _how_ the source is distributed?
> >
> >>  * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> >>  *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> >
> >That one. diffs almost never include the copyright and license.
> 
> IMHO, that's really a nit to pick given that the diffs will be used to
> patch source files that DO have the copyright notice.

That's quite an assumption to make, and I'm pretty sure that you'll find
you're wrong in this case.  There are people who are quite willing to
strip these notices off of files.

However, I believe the real reason why you wouldn't want to allow this is
that it makes the license less enforceable in a legal sense if you allow
people to distribute your code in this manner.  Like David, tho, IANAL.

> I think the reason
> nobody's sued FreeBSD over this is that nobody at Berkeley is insane enough
> to pick nits like this.

Probably.  I'll certainly say that I don't believe cvsup violates the
spirit of the BSD-style license, but it certainly does violate the letter.
 
> I guess this could be worked around while still using diffs if every line
> in the copyright header were given a timestamp or build number each time
> the file was modified. Then diff would have to include the header each
> time. Hmm.

Ugh!  That'd suck! :-)  I'm pretty sure I've heard this matter discussed
before, and I'm not too sure there are any easy (or even viable) solutions
to this problem.  Ah well....

> >Disclaimer: IANAL.
> 
> Hmm? What's that one stand for? :)

I Am Not A Lawyer :-)

Later.

-- 
Colin Wood                                 cwood@ichips.intel.com
Component Design Engineer - PMD                 Intel Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I speak only on my own behalf, not for my employer.