Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 15:36:55 -0700 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@winston.osd.bsdi.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein), marko@FreeBSD.ORG (Mark Ovens), will@physics.purdue.edu (Will Andrews), advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: stolen script? Message-ID: <72330.970526215@winston.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Message from Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> of "Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:42:44 -0000." <200010022142.OAA11519@usr05.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> According to the IBM lawyers who did due dilligence on all > of FreeBSD, prior to the Whistle acquisition, the src/COPYRIGHT > is all that's necessary and sufficient. [I should know better than to reply to a Lambert posting, but what the hell, it's Monday :) ] I would have thought IBM employed more expensive lawyers than this. There are portions of /usr/src clearly covered under the GPL, yet your lawyers claimed that src/COPYRIGHT still covered them? I have to believe that you're misrepresenting what they said since I can't imagine IBM going this far wrong. Similarly, there are other bits of src/ which are covered under the beerware license, private licenses, various permutations on the berkeley license and any number of things not covered by src/COPYRIGHT. That would imply a rule of "under src/COPYRIGHT unless I say otherwise" and that's not a rule which I could see any lawyer supporting since it would mean that any portion of src which was taken away would suddenly be license-less, and expecting an "all or nothing" approach to FreeBSD's /usr/src would be unrealistic at best. - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?72330.970526215>