From owner-freebsd-chat Sun Apr 7 3:12:34 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from postfix1-2.free.fr (postfix1-2.free.fr [213.228.0.130]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18D1A37B405 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 03:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bluerondo.a.la.turk (nas-cbv-6-62-147-150-233.dial.proxad.net [62.147.150.233]) by postfix1-2.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A7FAB552 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 12:12:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 4691 invoked by uid 1001); 7 Apr 2002 10:12:24 -0000 Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 12:12:24 +0200 From: Rahul Siddharthan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Ian Pulsford , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Abuses of the BSD license? Message-ID: <20020407101223.GA4647@lpt.ens.fr> Mail-Followup-To: Terry Lambert , Ian Pulsford , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG References: <3CAE7037.801FB15F@optusnet.com.au> <3CAEA028.186ED53E@optusnet.com.au> <20020406105111.A90057@lpt.ens.fr> <3CAEDDD2.2ADA819F@mindspring.com> <20020406114505.GA2576@lpt.ens.fr> <3CAEE4A1.315CF53@mindspring.com> <20020406191209.GA3203@lpt.ens.fr> <3CAF8204.5E93CE38@mindspring.com> <20020407084801.GA4429@lpt.ens.fr> <3CB01A09.C86F98FC@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CB01A09.C86F98FC@mindspring.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.5-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert said on Apr 7, 2002 at 03:06:01: > > > That looks, to me, like effectively dropping the BSD licence terms, > > since you don't know what they apply to; sure you can find out with > > some research, but you could have done that anyway, given just a BSD > > copyright notice and no licence. And when redistributing, you can > > just continue to bundle the BSD licence, now made meaningless by this > > "we're not telling you what pieces" disclaimer. > > Wrong. Without explicit delineation of what it applies to, > you must assume it applies to everything, not that it applies > to nothing -- else why would it be there at all? That was precisely my point with respect to Microsoft: without explicit delineation, how do they (a) include the BSD licence, (b) not imply that it applies to everything they're shipping? To quote from your earlier mail: I wrote > > For your own protection, if you're Microsoft you must make it > > explicitly clear exactly what the BSD licence applies to -- it > > clearly applies to something you're shipping; and surely you can't > > say "this licence applies to some code in our ftp binary, but not > > to the binary as a whole, and if you want to know exactly what it > > applies to and thus take advantage of this licence, you have to go > > find the relevant pieces of source code for yourself; we won't > > help you." To which you wrote: > Sure they can say that. Why couldn't they? Well, can they or can't they? If they can, why can't the GNU folks? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message