Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 08 May 1996 14:16:32 -0700
From:      "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
To:        "Daniel M. Eischen" <eischen@pcnet.com>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Copyright question 
Message-ID:  <25051.831590192@time.cdrom.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 08 May 1996 10:40:24 EDT." <3190B258.41C67EA6@pcnet.com> 

index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail

>   o It's a MIL-STD-1553 driver and will have limited use.  Can
>     we still have it included in the source tree?

I don't see why not - we've already got some pretty "limited use"
drivers in there already, and a driver doesn't take up that much
space.

>   o How does the addition of 4th condition in the copyright
>     affect any inclusion in FreeBSD?  Is it too restrictive?

I'd say it's a little iffy.  For example, let's say I have a condor
board and I build a kernel for it after seeing the entry in LINT
(bearing in mind that most people never even _look_ at the source
code).  So far, so good - it works great and I'm very happy.  Then I
set about to put 5 more machines together for the same purpose and,
right around the same time, see an advert for a Condor clone that's
half the price in a magazine.  "Wow!" I say, "that's for me.  I'll buy
5 of these instead and save a few bucks."  So I buy my 5 condor
clones, copy the kernel over from the first machine to the other 5
(let's assume I buy standard equipment) and it all works fine.
However, since I never once looked at the source code, I'm now
inadvertantly breaking the law.

It looks like clause 4 is trying to enforce legally what most
companies seek to achieve simply by never releasing information on
their products.  Not that I want Condor to go that route, mind you,
but I don't think that what they're trying to achieve with clause 4 is
even legally achievable.  I'm sure that the person in my hypothetical
example above would have a pretty good case for "insufficient notice"
if this ever came to court, so clause 4 doesn't even really have any
teeth and can only cause FUD by being there.  I'd be happier to see it
go.

					Jordan


help

Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?25051.831590192>