Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 11:38:45 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: Shimon@i-connect.net, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-scsi@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Patches on senderp-ppp.i-connect.net Message-ID: <199709141838.LAA01564@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> In-Reply-To: <199709141821.MAA19937@rocky.mt.sri.com> from Nate Williams at "Sep 14, 97 12:21:33 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > a) It is not ``proprietary'' unless you take legal and proper actions > > to keep it as such. In most cases you have done just the opposite, > > you've given pointers to it in a public forum. > > Correct. > > > b) The action of making it avaliable to anyone other than yourself > > is `publication'', thierfor the code is not ``unpublished''. > > Then AT&T/USL/Novell/SCO code isn't publication either, since they > contain the same wording. I'd tend to be believe that the above isn't > true. The AT&T/USL/Novell/SCO code is _only_ made avaliable under license agreement, and the _signed_ license is what keeps it unpublished. So you are correct, my statement was incomplete, whoever, Simons code has been ``published'' since he did not protect himself with a ``license''. > > c) Your ftp server welcome message desen't even head any warnings > > what so ever. > > I don't think it matters, since many ftp servers that distribute > copyrighted software don't have welcome messages. Welcome messages > aren't even standard on stock ftp server. People keep going back to ``copyright'' his copyright is fine, he has copyriht protection, but, the other parts are pretty much blown. Go back and even try and find the word copyright in my original mail message... > But, the first clause alone is enough to make things 'interesting. Yep..... -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com Accurate Automation, Inc. Reliable computers for FreeBSD
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709141838.LAA01564>