Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 11:16:30 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexey Zelkin <phantom@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org>, jkh@FreeBSD.org, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net>, Boris Popov <bp@FreeBSD.org>, cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netsmb smb_conn.h smb_smb.c Message-ID: <20020917181630.GC76292@dragon.nuxi.com> In-Reply-To: <20020917174142.A41243@ark.cris.net> References: <3D85BE19.59196A84@FreeBSD.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209162134040.1544-100000@lion.butya.kz> <20020916154308.GC28848@vega.vega.com> <20020917132617.GJ72320@starjuice.net> <3D8734AC.ABCC329A@FreeBSD.org> <20020917174142.A41243@ark.cris.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 05:41:43PM +0300, Alexey Zelkin wrote: > > IIRC, patches are subject to license of original file unless otherwise > explicitly stated (and it's not violate orignal license). That is an unfounded assumption. Well not 100% unfounded as it is usual practice. But we should not depend on that. > I.e. if file > is distributed under GPL - all patches are GPLed too. Legally correct, because the license explicitly states that. > Same may be > applicable to BSDL. Am I right ? We need to consult an intelectual property lawer to say anything about that. In fact we should probably have an explicit statement somewhere that states the patches in our Ports Collection are under BSDL except where the license of what they patch requires them to be otherwise. > 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 ? Yes. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020917181630.GC76292>