Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 19:32:06 -0700 (PDT) From: papowell@astart.com To: drosih@rpi.edu, imp@village.org Cc: andrews@technologist.com, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, nik@FreeBSD.ORG, papowell@astart.com, sheldonh@uunet.co.za, will@almanac.yi.org Subject: Re: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? - License Issues Message-ID: <200007060232.TAA23720@h4.private>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> From will@almanac.yi.org Mon Jul 3 20:35:14 2000 > Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:32:55 -0400 > From: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com> > To: papowell@astart.com > Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, sheldonh@uunet.co.za > Subject: Re: was: Bringing LPRng into FreeBSD? > > On Mon, Jul 03, 2000 at 08:30:04PM -0700, papowell@astart.com wrote: > > [ nice list of advantages of lprng ] > > Would you be happy to import LPRng with a BSD license in the FreeBSD > tree? The artistic license + GPL are prohibiting. > > Someone mentioned that you allowed BSDI to distribute LPRng in BSD/OS > with a BSD license; can you not do the same for FreeBSD? > > -- > Will Andrews <andrewsw@purdue.edu> <will@FreeBSD.org> > GCS/E/S @d- s+:+>+:- a--->+++ C++ UB++++ P+ L- E--- W+++ !N !o ?K w--- > ?O M+ V-- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X++ R+ tv+ b++>++++ DI+++ D+ > G++>+++ e->++++ h! r-->+++ y? > I am surprised at the concern of the licensing issue, so let me explain the development of the LPRng code and how the license issues evolved. If you are not interested in the following topics skip them. But please take the time to read the last one. Here are some questions that seem to be common to the license issue. You can skip most of them, but please read the last one, marked with a *, and please feel free to comment about this. Question: Why the Artistic License? Why the GPL License? Question: Why is BSDi using the BSD license? Question: Why is LPRng not currently under the BSD license? * Question: How would you distribute LPRng under the BSD license? Question: Why the Artistic License? Why the GPL License? The original PLP and LPRng distributions, up until the LPRng 3.5.* release as I recall, were under a variation of the BSD license. At this point in time I started to fold some code that had been provided by some 3rd party folks into the LPRng distribution. Actually, the code had been developed under contract for them, and they indicated that they had no objections about folding them back in. This has resulted in a 'main line' code which is distributed to the public and several 'corporate branches' that contain changes and facilities specific to various organizations that need them. Now, here comes the interesting part. Due to an encounter with some FSF representatives, the folks paying for me to do the various modifications stated that under no circumstances was I to put LPRng main line under GPL come hell, high water, or any other condition until they clarified the terms of the GPL. Apparently there was also some personality conflicts at the highest level that resulted in this dictum. They did not want me to accidentally include their code and have this released under GPL, which would then require them to make the GPL code available. Don't tell me that this is not the case - they had a legal opinion that said that this might be the case, and they could then be in the position of disposing of a corporate asset with no return, and then they would be targets for stockholder lawsuits. Besides, they were paying me a lot of money to do the code development, and I find it very hard to turn down money. One way to avoid this was to remove the API interfaces to their code in the LPRng main line distribution. This was done, and I put LPRng under the GPL about a year ago. Question: Why is BSDi using the BSD license? Answer: They are not. They have a direct license from me to include the binaries and source code in their distribution. In return, they send me the source for their version of the distributions. They do not need to ship source code for their versions or modifications unless they want to. (This satisfies the Artistic License requirements, by the way). Most folks who have included LPRng in their distributions also send me copies of their distributions as well. Question: Why is LPRng not currently under the BSD license? If somebody modifies LPRng and it turns out that the modified vesion has security holes in it, I want to make sure that the version is identfied in the CERT advisory as: 'The FumbleFingerd Corporation's Modified Version of LPRng x.x.x' and not as 'LPRng by Patrick Powell Version x.x.x', and point out the Joe Blortz of FFC made the mods. Now of course, if my baseline code has the flaw then I will not be happy about it, but I will eat crow in public, without salt AND with Louisiana Hot Sauce. This is currently one of the big weaknesses of the BSD license. In my not-so-humble opinion, Sendmail has had a lot of bad press because of the BSD license, mostly because some Major Corporations were using an out of date and buggy version of the Sendmail code, which they had modified, but did not tell what the modifications were, and would not update to a newer version. Now I do not claim that the modificiations were the cause of the problems, but without visibility of the modifications you can spend a lot of time trying to discover the cause of the problem in the baseline code, when this is not the source of the problem at all. ********** Please read and comment ************** Question: How would you distribute LPRng under the BSD license? I would distribute the code under the modified BSD license, but also include the following provision (I am writing this in plain English): If you make additional modifications to this code that are not already present in the source code distribution that you obtained it from, then this must be indicated by providing an additional message in the version and copyright information displayed by the appropriate command and included in the binary distribution. For example: Original LPRng, compiled from the raw distribution: ## lpc -V LPRng-3.6.19, Copyright 1988-2000 Patrick Powell, <papowell@astart.com> The FreeBSD Distribution binaries and binaries generated from the FreeBSD modifications to the source would show: ## lpc -V LPRng-3.6.19, Copyright 1988-2000 Patrick Powell, <papowell@astart.com> included in FreeBSD Distribution 4.X, 2000-Jan-01, Phil Phumbler <pp@freebsd.org> And the version that FumbleFingerd made mods to in addition to the FreeBSD would show: ## lpc -V LPRng-3.6.19, Copyright 1988-2000 Patrick Powell, <papowell@astart.com> included in: FreeBSD Distribution 4.X, 2000-Jan-01, Phil Phumbler <pp@freebsd.org> modified by: FumbleFingerd Corp- version 1.10, 2000-Jan-05, <support@ffc.hotmail.com> I think that this would go a little way to solving problems of tracking what version is used for what system, and where you got the code. I think this is a more global problem and should be added to the general way that 'Open Software' is being promoted. Note: There is NOTHING to prevent folks from going to the LPRng web site, downloading the orginal version, and using this. They could even rip off the patches needed to run under FreeBSD from the FreeBSD distribution code and claim them as their own. Ummm... bit dangerous that. I seem to recall some problems with AT&T and the University of California over something similar. Patrick Powell Astart Technologies, papowell@astart.com 9475 Chesapeake Drive, Suite D, Network and System San Diego, CA 92123 Consulting 858-874-6543 FAX 858-279-8424 LPRng - Print Spooler (http://www.astart.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007060232.TAA23720>