Date: Sat, 10 Jun 95 16:25:33 -0700 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@netcom.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@trout.sri.mt.net> Cc: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@kithrup.com>, leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com, hackers@freebsd.org, terry@cs.weber.edu Subject: Re: Slight flame from Linux user Message-ID: <199506102325.QAA08213@netcom6.netcom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Jun 95 15:59:16 MDT." <199506092159.PAA01818@trout.sri.MT.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I disagree. There are too many things that aren't plain enough in the > copyright to make it safe to distribute it and make money at the same > time. Note, even though lcc may not be the primary money-maker, the > license is not specific enough to allow someone like WC to distribute > the compiler w/out the possibility of being sued for 'making money' from > the compiler. I just reread it carefully and I don't see this. As long as you include the copyright notice, acknowledge its source and state it is available free of charge you have met the terms of the copyright. There is some vagueness in the copyright notice but even the most restrictive reading seems to allow WC's distribution. > Again, I'm no legal expert but have enough experience with the legal > process to know that unless it's crystal clear, it's not worth hassling > with, especially considering the 'free' status of FreeBSD. A pity if lcc gets left out due to its vague copyright. It may be worth sending off an email to the authors (I'd do it but an official voice from FreeBSD may carry a lot more weight). May be if enough people complain they'd see light. --bakul
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506102325.QAA08213>