Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 08 May 1996 14:16:32 -0700
From:      "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
To:        "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@pcnet.com>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Copyright question 
Message-ID:  <25051.831590192@time.cdrom.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 May 1996 10:40:24 EDT." <3190B258.41C67EA6@pcnet.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>   o It's a MIL-STD-1553 driver and will have limited use.  Can
>     we still have it included in the source tree?

I don't see why not - we've already got some pretty "limited use"
drivers in there already, and a driver doesn't take up that much
space.

>   o How does the addition of 4th condition in the copyright
>     affect any inclusion in FreeBSD?  Is it too restrictive?

I'd say it's a little iffy.  For example, let's say I have a condor
board and I build a kernel for it after seeing the entry in LINT
(bearing in mind that most people never even _look_ at the source
code).  So far, so good - it works great and I'm very happy.  Then I
set about to put 5 more machines together for the same purpose and,
right around the same time, see an advert for a Condor clone that's
half the price in a magazine.  "Wow!" I say, "that's for me.  I'll buy
5 of these instead and save a few bucks."  So I buy my 5 condor
clones, copy the kernel over from the first machine to the other 5
(let's assume I buy standard equipment) and it all works fine.
However, since I never once looked at the source code, I'm now
inadvertantly breaking the law.

It looks like clause 4 is trying to enforce legally what most
companies seek to achieve simply by never releasing information on
their products.  Not that I want Condor to go that route, mind you,
but I don't think that what they're trying to achieve with clause 4 is
even legally achievable.  I'm sure that the person in my hypothetical
example above would have a pretty good case for "insufficient notice"
if this ever came to court, so clause 4 doesn't even really have any
teeth and can only cause FUD by being there.  I'd be happier to see it
go.

					Jordan



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?25051.831590192>