From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed May 8 14:17:21 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA25914 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 8 May 1996 14:17:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA25908 for ; Wed, 8 May 1996 14:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA25053; Wed, 8 May 1996 14:16:32 -0700 (PDT) To: "Daniel M. Eischen" cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Copyright question In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 08 May 1996 10:40:24 EDT." <3190B258.41C67EA6@pcnet.com> Date: Wed, 08 May 1996 14:16:32 -0700 Message-ID: <25051.831590192@time.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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