ExternalVendorCode/conserver
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bstansell/conserver.git synced 2025-01-28 22:53:51 +00:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

adjust formatting

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Bryan Stansell 2020-05-25 15:01:35 -07:00
parent 5b7b61b33b
commit 0d24934aaf
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 28E4B7253029E7F6
1 changed files with 60 additions and 60 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

120
README-LICENSE.md
View File

@ -20,66 +20,66 @@ has been moved over from the [INSTALL](INSTALL) file:
Here's a copy of the message I exchanged with Thomas A. Fine (original
author at OSU) in 2001 that is referenced above:
> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:47:18 -0400 (EDT)
> To: bryan@conserver.com
> From: "Thomas A. Fine" <fine@head-cfa.harvard.edu>
> Subject: Re: A conserver license question...
>
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > I had a little "problem" crop up that I was hoping you could help me
> > with. A guy out in net-land is trying to put a debian package together
> > of the code I've been releasing (based on your original work) and they
> > don't like part of the Ohio State license. I've attached the message
> > below.
> >
> > I'm not sure what can be done. One thought was a message from you that
> > I could put with the code stating that modifications are ok would
> > work. Or maybe just modifying the original license statement. Heck, I
> > don't even know if either are 100% legal. Maybe I need to talk to
> > someone at Ohio State.
> >
> > Well, if you have any ideas or suggestions, please let me know. Don't
> > know if I ever got a chance to thank you for the great stuff you
> > started! Thank you! ;-)
>
> Well, if I knew then what I know now, I would have copyrighted it
> under my own name, and not under OSU, and then I could change it.
> Since I don't work there anymore, strictly speaking, I can't change
> it.
>
> However, IMHO, this license allows modifications, without explicitly
> stating it. I can state without a doubt that this was my intention
> at the time (and hence, OSU's intention, since I put in the copyright
> while working for OSU).
>
> But also, since it allows use of the source, and since the statement
> required for inclusion says "includes software ..." it seems pretty
> clear that modification was both allowed and expected. You can't
> really use sources if you aren't changing them, and you certainly
> can't include this software in some other product without making
> modifications.
>
> As I recall, I more or less used the copyright that Berkeley was using
> back then for there BSD-related software, so I'm surprised there's a
> problem with it.
>
> I have to point out that version 1.2, available at
> http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/Tech/cs1.2/
> is distributed entirely without copyright notices. Interesting, no?
> So I guess I could add a copyright notice to that. But would I then
> be violating the OSU copyright that I wrote for 1.1? Since it is
> a different version, I could probably write a new copyright notice
> and license and be free and clear.
>
> There's also Purdue's versions of the software. It's mentioned on my
> console server web page at
> http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/Tech/console-server.html
>
> So, pass this on to the people you're working with and let me know how
> you want to proceed.
>
> tom
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:47:18 -0400 (EDT)
To: bryan@conserver.com
From: "Thomas A. Fine" <fine@head-cfa.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: A conserver license question...
> Hi Tom,
>
> I had a little "problem" crop up that I was hoping you could help me
> with. A guy out in net-land is trying to put a debian package together
> of the code I've been releasing (based on your original work) and they
> don't like part of the Ohio State license. I've attached the message
> below.
>
> I'm not sure what can be done. One thought was a message from you that
> I could put with the code stating that modifications are ok would
> work. Or maybe just modifying the original license statement. Heck, I
> don't even know if either are 100% legal. Maybe I need to talk to
> someone at Ohio State.
>
> Well, if you have any ideas or suggestions, please let me know. Don't
> know if I ever got a chance to thank you for the great stuff you
> started! Thank you! ;-)
Well, if I knew then what I know now, I would have copyrighted it
under my own name, and not under OSU, and then I could change it.
Since I don't work there anymore, strictly speaking, I can't change
it.
However, IMHO, this license allows modifications, without explicitly
stating it. I can state without a doubt that this was my intention
at the time (and hence, OSU's intention, since I put in the copyright
while working for OSU).
But also, since it allows use of the source, and since the statement
required for inclusion says "includes software ..." it seems pretty
clear that modification was both allowed and expected. You can't
really use sources if you aren't changing them, and you certainly
can't include this software in some other product without making
modifications.
As I recall, I more or less used the copyright that Berkeley was using
back then for there BSD-related software, so I'm surprised there's a
problem with it.
I have to point out that version 1.2, available at
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/Tech/cs1.2/
is distributed entirely without copyright notices. Interesting, no?
So I guess I could add a copyright notice to that. But would I then
be violating the OSU copyright that I wrote for 1.1? Since it is
a different version, I could probably write a new copyright notice
and license and be free and clear.
There's also Purdue's versions of the software. It's mentioned on my
console server web page at
http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/Tech/console-server.html
So, pass this on to the people you're working with and let me know how
you want to proceed.
tom
Hopefully corporations (or, I suppose, their lawyers) will be happy with the
explanation above and become comfortable with the stated license.