mirror of
https://github.com/bstansell/conserver.git
synced 2024-12-25 07:21:06 +00:00
105 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
105 lines
4.7 KiB
Markdown
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
|
|
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" <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
|
|
|
|
In addition, a post to the Conserver Users mailing list in May 2020 contained:
|
|
|
|
From: Paul Wise via users <users@conserver.com>
|
|
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.
|