From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jun 28 21:49:32 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from obie.softweyr.com (obie.softweyr.com [204.68.178.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32C7E37C25C for ; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 21:49:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from softweyr.com (Foolstrustident!@homer.softweyr.com [204.68.178.39]) by obie.softweyr.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA28881; Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:49:25 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Message-ID: <395AD5CA.1A127F8@softweyr.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 22:51:22 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr LLC X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (X11; U; FreeBSD 4.0-STABLE i386) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Warner Losh Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? References: <39593208.7D132924@softweyr.com> <200006270744.BAA32993@harmony.village.org> <200006272328.RAA50308@harmony.village.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Warner Losh wrote: > > 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. I agree, and my legal counsel agrees as well. What he said, however, is that he feels it is defensible in court, not that it is pretty much lawsuit proof. He feels the 2-clause BSD license is lawsuit proof. Which would you prefer? ;^) > 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. That issue doesn't worry me so much. I worry about encumbering FreeBSD itself, rather than derived works. As others have pointed out, those who don't want to work with LPRng can always get the previous version out of CVS. I'd prefer to see it moved to ports if LPRng is to be ported. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC wes@softweyr.com http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message