From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jan 16 20:58:45 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA15204
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 20:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA15187
          for <Hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 20:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA07146; Tue, 16 Jan 1996 22:01:07 -0700
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 22:01:07 -0700
From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net>
Message-Id: <199601170501.WAA07146@rocky.sri.MT.net>
To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Cc: nate@sri.MT.net (Nate Williams), Hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: FBSD 2.1
In-Reply-To: <199601170314.NAA01243@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
References: <199601161547.IAA04366@rocky.sri.MT.net>
	<199601170314.NAA01243@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > Er, have you actually looked at the ZIP license?  It's definitely not a
> > > GPL toy.
> > > 
> > > Unpack the 'unzip' source archive and read the COPYING file.  Just
> > > because it's called COPYING doesn't mean GPL 8)
> > 
> > Re-read the license.  Just because it doesn't claim to be the GPL
> > doesn't mean it's not following the same 'form' as the GPL.  They are
> > very similar licenses.
> 
> Huh?  This I just don't follow.  Their license and copyrights look (to me)
> nothing like the GPL at all.  They all boil down to "do what you like with
> this code, as long as you don't try to lock the source code away".

Actually, you can't modify the code and unless you promise to distribute
the source code of the original code.  You *must* provide source code to
the software (this is GPL ish)

> There's no requirement that other code aggregated with it fall under the
> same restrictions, or (except in the case of _commercial_applications_,
> which FreeBSD is not) the provision of any form of associated service.

Actually, FreeBSD is 'sort of' a commercial application of the source
code, in as much as that WC makes money from it.  We all understand that
they are making money from the 'distribution' of FreeBSD, but in a court
of law it could be said that the law is broken.

Again, this is in-line with the sorts of licenses we've avoided for
similar reasons in the past.


Nate