From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jan 29 22:11:04 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA29100 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:11:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from ns2.cetlink.net (root@ns2.cetlink.net [209.54.54.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA29090 for ; Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:11:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jak@cetlink.net) Received: from hot1.auctionfever.com (ts2-cltnc-87.cetlink.net [209.54.58.87]) by ns2.cetlink.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id BAA02253; Fri, 30 Jan 1998 01:10:27 -0500 (EST) From: jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) To: dmaddox@scsn.net Cc: Greg Lehey , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: STAC vs. the BSD License Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:11:02 GMT Message-ID: <34d17a26.10132893@mail.cetlink.net> References: <19980129190335.64088@scsn.net> <19980130105847.60343@lemis.com> <19980129194229.16307@scsn.net> In-Reply-To: <19980129194229.16307@scsn.net> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.01/16.397 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by hub.freebsd.org id WAA29093 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG X-To-Unsubscribe: mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org "unsubscribe hackers" On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:42:29 -0500, dmaddox@scsn.net (Donald J. Maddox) wrote: >>"the BSD license" in it's entirety? >> >> Yes. Basically it says: >> >> 1. You can use this software however you choose. >> 2. Don't blame us if it breaks. >> 3. Don't use our name to advertise it [I consider this a difficult >> one; it conflicts with the next]. >> 4. Do acknowledge the use of the code. > >Thanks for the reply, Greg... This interpretation is pretty close to >what I got out of it. So, I guess this means if I want to be able to >include STAC compression into FreeBSD, then _they_ have to be willing >to allow STAC to be distributed with no further restrictions than the >above... Is that right? I don't think the STAC people will accept that. Nevertheless, you should still be able to implement a STAC routine which would be called by PPP and PPPD. The trick will be modifying PPP and PPPD to optionally call STAC when it's present on the machine, without disturbing any users who don't have it on their machine. Just because one function or module has a BSD copyright doesn't mean every module it calls is contaminated with the same. You can have a different copyright and license on the called STAC code you port. The boundary line separating the copyright/license is the call interface. That's been a generally accepted principle for a long time. Code like a STAC port which is not BSD copyrighted won't be included in the base distribution, but that's not your objective anyway, presumably. ------- John The day of the proprietary OS is over. Long live free software.