Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 19:02:37 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net> Cc: FreeBSD Chat <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Abuses of the BSD license? Message-ID: <3CB39D3D.AC9FA405@mindspring.com> References: <200204051922.06556@silver.dt1.binity.net> <3CAE7037.801FB15F@optusnet.com.au> <3CAEA028.186ED53E@optusnet.com.au> <3CAED90B.F4B7905@mindspring.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20020406124622.019bfdc8@threespace.com> <3CAF7FB9.3259C392@mindspring.com> <qmu1qmzwkb.1qm@localhost.localdomain> <3CB1196B.403F465D@mindspring.com> <26g026zq9y.026@localhost.localdomain> <3CB14B08.91041978@mindspring.com> <cubscuywc5.scu@localhost.localdomain> <3CB219DA.1B7DFB06@mindspring.com> <y53cy5zryy.cy5@localhost.localdomain> <3CB26D50.7FE4DED4@mindspring.com> <lor8loyeer.8lo@localhost.localdomain> <3CB37A88.EEB78B79@mindspring.com> <rgk7rgxrr3.7rg@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Gary W. Swearingen" wrote:
> I'm quite sure that I've made it abundantly clear that I wasn't
> discussing an NDA case and you've provided no clues that there
> was an NDA ("this is XXX proprietary information" is not an NDA).
> You're now changing the story and I've tired of hitting your
> uncharacteristic softballs. I suspect that you're playing mind
> games and I'm finished with this thread. The last word is yours.
Fine. Then I won't take you to task over "divulge". 8-).
The topic of the discussion was "abuses of the BSD license", and
the very first thing that happened, as happens in all such
discussions, is that the GPL fanatics come out of the woodwork to
defend substantial use of BSD code in GPL'ed works, with the BSD
license removed, as being legitimate because RMS says the licenses
are compatible, and, being The Prophet of The One True God of
Software, none dare criticise his statement.
It's very obvious that the original posting was a troll, to give
the GPL nuts an opportunity to jump in with "yeah, but... if you
let USL do it, don't you have to let GPL user do it?", totally
ignoring the contractual and legal environment.
I gave real world examples of the UCB vs. USL countersuit claims
(which are a matter of public record, and the filings for which
are available in multiple locations on the web), and now there
is an attempt to claim that the license in place on the code in
question wasn't in place, or that the USL lawyers and HP lawyers
and SGI lawyers and IBM lawyers are somehow selectively stupid
and ignorant of the legal issues, when it came to labelling the
code in question "unpublished proprietary".
> > In fact, it's probably a technical license violation for what was
> > published in this forum, with regard to the status of the works,
> > based on their attached license provisions. You'll notice that I
> > personally have not posted the direct information.
>
> That was my first thought upon seeing them, but one could make a good
> case that they had all four of the fair use factors (if one HAD to :).
I considered "fair use" as a defense; however, the defense is
only valid against copyright infringement, and what the people
who were posting did was a violation of their license, which is
a breach of contract issue, not a statutory issue.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CB39D3D.AC9FA405>