From owner-cvs-all Tue Sep 17 7:41:58 2002 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7992037B401; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 07:41:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from columbus.cris.net (columbus.cris.net [212.110.128.65]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3475143E3B; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 07:41:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phantom@ark.cris.net) Received: from ark.cris.net (root@ark.cris.net [212.110.128.68]) by columbus.cris.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA77410; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:41:41 +0300 (EEST) Received: (from phantom@localhost) by ark.cris.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) id g8HEfhM43946; Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:41:43 +0300 (EEST) Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 17:41:43 +0300 From: Alexey Zelkin To: Maxim Sobolev , jkh@FreeBSD.org Cc: Sheldon Hearn , Boris Popov , cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netsmb smb_conn.h smb_smb.c Message-ID: <20020917174142.A41243@ark.cris.net> References: <3D85BE19.59196A84@FreeBSD.org> <20020916154308.GC28848@vega.vega.com> <20020917132617.GJ72320@starjuice.net> <3D8734AC.ABCC329A@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3D8734AC.ABCC329A@FreeBSD.org>; from sobomax@FreeBSD.org on Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 04:57:00PM +0300 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.5-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG hi, On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 04:57:00PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > > On (2002/09/16 18:43), Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > > > > The files in question are under original BSD license which was > > > > left intact since Apple borrowed smbfs. > > > > > > Good to hear. I was just playing devil's advocate, because the > > > last thing the Project needs is legal battle with Apple. > > > > This was the big benefit FreeBSD expected out of Apple's use of our code > > -- the receipt of bugfixes and perhaps even enhancements from folks paid > > to hack on it. :-) > > This question needs more study, because patches applied by Darwin's > hackers/Apple's engineers to BSD code aren't necesarily BSD licensed > as well. BSDL is not a GPLV, which infects all derivative work, quite > on contrary, I'd expect all Apple changes being APL licensed, not BSDL > licensed. IIRC, patches are subject to license of original file unless otherwise explicitly stated (and it's not violate orignal license). I.e. if file is distributed under GPL - all patches are GPLed too. Same may be applicable to BSDL. Am I right ? BTW, there were some cases when developers who distributed something under non-BSD license released same packages under BSD or compatible licenses. Maybe someone (Jordan?) close to Apple need to talk about legal issues of merging Darwin originated patches back to FreeBSD. May be it is not issue at all, or may be Apple may agree to release Darwin's patches under BSDL ? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message