Date: Wed, 8 May 96 17:58:27 EDT From: eischen@vigrid.com (Daniel Eischen) To: eischen@vigrid.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Copyright question Message-ID: <9605082158.AA09404@pcnet1.pcnet.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 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. OK, cool. > > 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. This is a good point. A person can knowingly use the driver on non- Condor boards too. In this case we don't care because he violated the copyright (assuming he admits to it), in the other case the user wasn't properly informed and probably can't be held liable. I'll try to see if I can get rid of clause 4, but I don't think they're going to let it go without some sort of clause. Is there anything we can do? Add a comment in LINT saying it's restricted by copyright? Or point to a file from within LINT that will list the restricted driver(s)? As long as the user sees the copyright restriction before he rebuilds the kernel with the driver, right? Dan Eischen eischen@pcnet.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9605082158.AA09404>