Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 22:05:20 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, Shimon@i-connect.net, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-scsi@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patches on senderp-ppp.i-connect.net Message-ID: <199709142205.PAA24060@usr09.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199709141821.MAA19937@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Sep 14, 97 12:21:33 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > a) It is not ``proprietary'' unless you take legal and proper actions > > to keep it as such. In most cases you have done just the opposite, > > you've given pointers to it in a public forum. > > Correct. Or it might be seen as "due dilligence"... > > b) The action of making it avaliable to anyone other than yourself > > is `publication'', thierfor the code is not ``unpublished''. > > Then AT&T/USL/Novell/SCO code isn't publication either, since they > contain the same wording. I'd tend to be believe that the above isn't > true. You're right. Unpublished code can remain unpublished, however widely distributed, so long as it is only distributed to a "select group". Without controls on who can FTP the code, there is no group selection enforced. This would fail to meet the criteria for distribution of unpublished sources, I'm afraid. Which means that due dilligence isn't met either. > > > c) Your ftp server welcome message desen't even head any warnings > > what so ever. > > I don't think it matters, since many ftp servers that distribute > copyrighted software don't have welcome messages. Welcome messages > aren't even standard on stock ftp server. > > But, the first clause alone is enough to make things 'interesting. Yup. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709142205.PAA24060>