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.