[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup
From: |
Ted Smith |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup |
Date: |
Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:49:52 -0400 |
On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 02:22 -0400, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> What is the proper way to solve this? Shouldn't the files contain
> a FSF copyright line? And shouldn't future contributions, owned by
> the FSF, be GPLv3+ rather than BSD licensed? For example, see
> patch below that just adds a GPLv3 template at the top.
>
> All contributions to inetutils are licensed under the GPL (latest
> version), and copyrighted by the FSF. This is a simple mistake on our
> part that we forgot to add the relevant notice to this particular
> file.
>
> If you look at commands.c, then you will notice that the copyright
> notice comes _after_ the modified BSD license notice, it should really
> come before. Nothing for you to worry if you don't feel inclined to
> fix it though.
>
> +++ auth.c 2009-06-09 07:03:08.000000000 +0200
> + Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> All years that inetutils was modified should be listed here since the
> file was introduced.
>
> So,
>
> Copyright (C) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 2003, 2004, 2005
> 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> Since we added the file in 1997 from BSD4.4-Lite, and we have done
> changes in inetutils each year since then.
>
>
> I noticed that auth.c contains a MIT license, which seems to have a
> annoying clause,
>
> ... WITHIN THAT CONSTRAINT, permission to use, copy, modify, and
> distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and
> [without fee] is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright ...
>
> `without fee', seems to mean that commercial distribution is not
> allowed, and thus making it incompatible with the GPL, and non-free as
> well. Do people agree with this reading? If so, we must rewrite, or
> remove these parts of inetutils.
>
>
Are you sure it doesn't mean "no fee is required to use, copy, modify,
and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose"? I
think it's disclaiming any royalties that might be implicitly required.
IANAL, of course.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, (continued)
- [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/06/10
- [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Simon Josefsson, 2009/06/10
- [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Simon Josefsson, 2009/06/10
- [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/06/11
- [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Simon Josefsson, 2009/06/11
- [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/06/14
- [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Simon Josefsson, 2009/06/15
- [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/06/16
- Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2009/06/15
- Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2009/06/11
- Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup,
Ted Smith <=
- Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/06/10
- Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Karl Berry, 2009/06/09
- Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/06/10
- [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Jeff Bailey, 2009/06/09
- [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup, Simon Josefsson, 2009/06/09
Re: [bug-inetutils] telnet cleanup, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2009/06/08
Re: [bug-inetutils] telnet cleanup, Alfred M. Szmidt, 2009/06/08