From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 31 13:39:34 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69C3B105 for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:39:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from fbsd8@a1poweruser.com) Received: from mail-03.name-services.com (mail-03.name-services.com [69.64.155.195]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5804BD6E for ; Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:39:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.10.1] ([173.88.202.176]) by mail-03.name-services.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 31 Mar 2013 06:39:29 -0700 Message-ID: <51583C91.5060000@a1poweruser.com> Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:39:29 -0400 From: Joe User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: kpneal@pobox.com Subject: Re: use of the kernel and licensing References: <20130331001209.GA69583@neutralgood.org> In-Reply-To: <20130331001209.GA69583@neutralgood.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Mar 2013 13:39:29.0990 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B88CE60:01CE2E15] X-Sender: fbsd8@a1poweruser.com X-Authenticated-Sender: fbsd8@a1poweruser.com X-EchoSenderHash: [fbsd8]-[a1poweruser*com] Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:39:34 -0000 kpneal@pobox.com wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 09:22:22AM -0400, Maikoda Sutter wrote: >> If I use the kernel as a basis for my own system and modify the kernel >> should I still maintain the licensing of the kernel bits, or could release >> it under it's own license? >> >> For example: I would like to rewrite the headers to be 100% POSIX compliant >> and I do like the BSD license, however I was planning on releasing my whole >> system under the Unlicense, I understand that certain headers and code that >> I do not modify has to be released under the BSD license as that is the >> original license of the code, however for headers or code that I modify can >> I release it under the Unlicense (http://unlicense.org/)? >> >> I do plan on giving credit where it is due and such to the wonderful >> developers of FreeBSD and those that wrote the original code because >> without you I would not be able to produce so rapidly that which I am >> looking to produce I just would like clarification on the extent that I >> would have to license things via the BSD license. > > You cannot yourself change the license on code you do not hold the copyright > on. Period. > > If you make changes and redistribute them then add your copyright notice > with license to the files. Do not remove the existing copyright notice(s) > and license(s). > > You hold the copyright for stuff you wrote, but the original copyright > stays for the parts that did not come from you. "Parts" means any fraction > of a file from the whole file down to small amounts. You are allowed to > add restrictions (unless the existing license says you can't), but you are > not allowed to loosen the existing restrictions (unless the existing license > says you can). Also, it follows from the copyright that your license only > applies to the parts copyrighted by you. The existing licenses are similar > in that they apply only to their parts of the file. All licenses must be > followed when the file is treated (copied, used, etc) as a whole. > > Make sure your license isn't incompatible with the license that applies > to other parts of the same file. If that happens then how it will turn out > in court is anyone's guess. The file may not be usable by the public, or > the incompatible license terms added by you may be struck down, or a judge > could cook up something else. It can't be predicted in advance so just > don't even go there. > > "Giving credit where it is due" is an important social convention, and I'm > glad to see that you aren't planning on doing anything unethical like > breaking it. But copyright comes from the law and thus must be obeyed even > if you wanted to break purely social conventions. > > Read up on copyright, and when you do pay close attention to the reliability > of the source. The issue has become very political in the past 15 years > or so. Don't be badly advised by someone who has their own agenda. Most > people, to varying degrees, have their own agenda. > > Finally, if money is at stake (directly or indirectly) I strongly advise > talking to a copyright lawyer in particular. That's just general advice. > Taking advice from random people online is not a good idea if any money > is involved, but I'd give the same advice to my best friend. The general > rule applies here as it does elsewhere: "You get what you pay for." > Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued a copyright on software? Does any software not having a copyright statement or any license comments included in the source mean that it's public domain?