From owner-freebsd-ports  Tue Aug 29 18:05:40 1995
Return-Path: ports-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id SAA01726
          for ports-outgoing; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 18:05:40 -0700
Received: from gndrsh.aac.dev.com (gndrsh.aac.dev.com [198.145.92.241])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA01719
          ; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 18:05:37 -0700
Received: (from rgrimes@localhost) by gndrsh.aac.dev.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id SAA05072; Tue, 29 Aug 1995 18:05:10 -0700
From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>
Message-Id: <199508300105.SAA05072@gndrsh.aac.dev.com>
Subject: Re: copyright notices for ports/packages
To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 18:05:10 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: paul@FreeBSD.org, asami@cs.berkeley.edu, ports@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <22482.809699491@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Aug 29, 95 05:31:31 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 1840      
Sender: ports-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> > Ok, there's some merit in that but what I was getting at was if
> > they'd built the packages themselves i.e. not used our ports
> > system,they'd be in the same boat, if the original code didn't
> > install it's Copyright then why should we worry about it?
> 
> Because the argument can easily be made that by "automating" it to the
> degree we have, we've removed even the most general oversight the user
> would usually have were they building the sources by hand.
> 
> I'm just trying to forstall any future bad feeling, and we should
> definitely go the extra mile to make sure that copyrights are
> preserved out of ports and packages if for no other reason than to
> make US more aware of the licenses we're using or abusing.

You will find that the GPL requires the production of the copyright
by the installed binary.  Any person who writes software and does not
place a suiteable copyright in there binary does not fully understand
copyright law.

This whole issue of installing copyright files with binaries is silly,
as a copyright not directly attached to the work is invalid under US
law I know for a fact, and may very well be invalid under internation
recognition.

The GPL is not a copyright, it is a license, licenses have different
rules about them.  What the GPL does is valid.  The GPL does not require
a copy of the GPL to be shipped with the binaries, it requires the source
code or an offer for the source code to be given with them, and a copy
of ``COPYING''.

Please read the applicable GPL files, and any good book on copyright law for
further details.

Please do not install Copyright files with the binaries as it has no
legal significance.

Thanks,
-- 
Rod Grimes                                      rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com
Accurate Automation Company                 Reliable computers for FreeBSD