Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:28:50 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? Message-ID: <200006272328.RAA50308@harmony.village.org> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Jun 2000 17:00:24 MDT." <39593208.7D132924@softweyr.com> References: <39593208.7D132924@softweyr.com> <200006270744.BAA32993@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <39593208.7D132924@softweyr.com> Wes Peters writes:
: Warner Losh wrote:
: >
: > --------
: > I hate to follow up to myself.
: >
: > I did want to add that if my logic on why the license doesn't matter
: > is faulty somehow, I would like to know. The one problem that I see
: > people bringing up is the desire for anything that replaces lpr/lpd to
: > be modifiable by parties not wishing to disclose those modifications
: > in source form, but distribute them in object form only.
: >
: > Evidentally, there are people that have done this now and would most
: > likely wish to do something similar with lprng if we were to import
: > it.
: >
: > Do I have the gist of the objection understood?
:
: No. See my moments-previous rant about why you may not be able to
: distribute the "FreeBSD standard LPRng" in a binary product.
I think you misunderstand. If I distribute the modified version of
lprng that is in FreeBSD, but make no further changes to it in my
product, then I am in compliance with the license. Why? Because it
says that the sources to my version must be distributed.
ftp.freebsd.org is the distribution mechanism. So long as the CVS
tree is available, one could say that you are in compliance.
: 4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or
: executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
One could argue that embedding this software in a package isn't
distributing it, so section 4 doesn't apply. However, since you
aren't granted the right to embed it in a product, this might backfire.
: a) distribute a Standard Version of the executables and library files,
: together with instructions (in the manual page or equivalent) on where
: to get the Standard Version.
I think it is a standard version. Check out this definition:
"Standard Version" refers to such a Package if it has not been
modified, or has been modified in accordance with the wishes
of the Copyright Holder as specified below.
Since the FreeBSD version of LPRng has been modified in accordance
with the wishes of the Copyright Holder as granted in section 3A, I
think you're use of the bog standard FreeBSD is using a "Standard
Version" within the meaning of the license. Section 3A:
a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them
Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet or
an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major archive
site such as uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include
your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.
The Freely Available clause is satisified by the archive at
ftp.freebsd.org. This assumes that FreeBSD complies with the rest of
Section 3 (the prominent notice clauses, which one could argue is
automatically satisifed by the cvs ,v file since it logs everything
that you did to the file). Also we'd comply with the "allowing the
Copyright Holder" clause as well as the major archive clause.
I think this logic would be upheld in court because things are fairly
clear from the definitions. Not perfectly good, but the intent takes
over when the exact language of the contract isn't perfectly clear.
I'm not a lwayer, so you'll need to consult one to render a legal
opinion.
So you are left with what to do if you hack LPRng and don't wish to
distribute the changes at all ni source form.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006272328.RAA50308>