From 7d1af7dd2b57ab1d18cf457f098478716308bc6b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bryan Stansell Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 14:53:00 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] try and address license concerns with LICENSE.md --- INSTALL | 11 ------- LICENSE.md | 85 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) create mode 100644 LICENSE.md diff --git a/INSTALL b/INSTALL index f1ed457..bcfc861 100644 --- a/INSTALL +++ b/INSTALL @@ -256,17 +256,6 @@ Detailed Instructions Other Information And Gotchas - - Debian Linux Distribution - - The Debian folks have conserver distributed with the package - names of conserver-client and conserver-server. They are in - the distribution "sid" and the "non-free" part (because the - Ohio State license doesn't explicitly allow for modification to - the code, even though it's totally implied and the intention of - the author - I've even got proof in email! Oh well, can't - blame the Debian folks for being cautious - they've been burned - before, apparently). - - Potential GCC bug Adam Morris reported a problem with diff --git a/LICENSE.md b/LICENSE.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fc86874 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.md @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ +License Concerns +================ + +The licenses attached to this software ([LICENSES](LICENSES)) are supposed +to paint a simple concept: that this software was built for the open source +community and they result in a license compatible with [LICENSE](LICENSE). + +Unfortunately, the real world steps in and troubles can arise. This note +has been moved over from the [INSTALL](INSTALL) file: + + The Debian folks have conserver distributed with the package + names of conserver-client and conserver-server. They are in + the distribution "sid" and the "non-free" part (because the + Ohio State license doesn't explicitly allow for modification to + the code, even though it's totally implied and the intention of + the author - I've even got proof in email! Oh well, can't + blame the Debian folks for being cautious - they've been burned + before, apparently). + +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" +> 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. From 5b7b61b33b50a28682e6f8ced93d1c2e0346cb2f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bryan Stansell Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 14:55:27 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] use README-LICENSE.md --- LICENSE.md => README-LICENSE.md | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) rename LICENSE.md => README-LICENSE.md (100%) diff --git a/LICENSE.md b/README-LICENSE.md similarity index 100% rename from LICENSE.md rename to README-LICENSE.md From 0d24934aaf49ef0d32f12f6826e877fcc38e0c38 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bryan Stansell Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 15:01:35 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 3/5] adjust formatting --- README-LICENSE.md | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-) diff --git a/README-LICENSE.md b/README-LICENSE.md index fc86874..dfa4a23 100644 --- a/README-LICENSE.md +++ b/README-LICENSE.md @@ -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" -> 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" + 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. From 8e37bc88d3a6eafea4169a7e35b4e3df9c430c30 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bryan Stansell Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 15:04:09 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 4/5] re-title --- README-LICENSE.md | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/README-LICENSE.md b/README-LICENSE.md index dfa4a23..53020f2 100644 --- a/README-LICENSE.md +++ b/README-LICENSE.md @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ -License Concerns -================ +License Clarification +===================== The licenses attached to this software ([LICENSES](LICENSES)) are supposed to paint a simple concept: that this software was built for the open source From a1368a2e946e6a1dc32c06c9978af4b1fe0b2656 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bryan Stansell Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 20:01:26 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 5/5] adding portion of latest email around this --- README-LICENSE.md | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) diff --git a/README-LICENSE.md b/README-LICENSE.md index 53020f2..212c611 100644 --- a/README-LICENSE.md +++ b/README-LICENSE.md @@ -81,5 +81,24 @@ author at OSU) in 2001 that is referenced above: tom +In addition, a post to the Conserver Users mailing list in May 2020 contained: + + From: Paul Wise via users + To: users@conserver.com + Subject: Re: license change? + Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 12:42:28 +0800 + + On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 10:20 +0200, Bryan Stansell via users wrote: + > So, it's more the lack of explicitly stating the code can be + > modified. + + Since then I talked to one of RedHat's lawyers and they mentioned that + they have dealt with this problem too and also concluded that these + licenses were intended to cover modification. The current wording of + the initial part of the BSD license reflects an attempt to correct an + earlier mistake (i.e. someone pointed out the error and Berkeley added + "with or without modification"). Also the anti-endorsement clause + implies a right to modify. + Hopefully corporations (or, I suppose, their lawyers) will be happy with the explanation above and become comfortable with the stated license.