Re: [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   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.