From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Feb 26 14: 6:52 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from smtp03.primenet.com (smtp03.primenet.com [206.165.6.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E65DA14EBD for ; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:06:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert@usr04.primenet.com) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id PAA23685; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:06:23 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr04.primenet.com(206.165.6.204) via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd023659; Fri Feb 26 15:06:19 1999 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr04.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id PAA12640; Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:06:17 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199902262206.PAA12640@usr04.primenet.com> Subject: Re: If Brett only knew... To: jkh@zippy.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 22:06:16 +0000 (GMT) Cc: hasty@rah.star-gate.com, tlambert@primenet.com, brett@lariat.org, naddy@mips.rhein-neckar.de, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <6906.920013347@zippy.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Feb 25, 99 11:15:47 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > I have only, to my knowledge, removed clauses 3 and 4 from my own > original work. Some others have chosen to do the same. I don't think > we're talking about anyone going into code released by the > U.C. Regents or the University of Utah or whatever and modifying their > 4 clause copyright. That would be silly. Yeah. Let me be the first to say that this is true. I was actually thinking more in terms of the agregate license, and the possibility for misinterpretation of allowing GPL'ing. The stuff that Jordan has put out is capable of being GPL'ed, unlike the stuff from CSRG. I personally disagree with putting code out under a license that allows someone to coopt it, make it still nominally liberated, and later claim that I saw a derived work, instead of independantly arriving at a soloution. It's a situation in which you can be claimed to have been "polluted" by your own source code. I understand buying into the argument about the "advertising clause". That's why there is an assignment of copyright, and a common redefinition of all but the final licensee as "and contributors". The "proliferation problem" only occurs if you specifically mention features or use of the code; in other words, only if you try to turn everything into a marketing bullet item... and if you do, the list doubles per line item only in the case that the features came from different sources. I think, therefore, that the "proliferation problem" doesn't exist, and that the correct approach to strategic limitation is to take the UCB approach, and ask for contribution of rights. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message