On Fri, 9 Aug 2013, kpn...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 08:41:04PM -0500, Someth San wrote:
Hello,
I'm interested in installing FreeBSD into a small form factor PC for
commercial use and was wondering whether there is a EULA in place for that
purpose. I would like to avoid the
On 10/08/13 03:41, Someth San wrote:
Hello,
I'm interested in installing FreeBSD into a small form factor PC for
commercial use and was wondering whether there is a EULA in place for that
purpose. I would like to avoid the open source requirement of disclosing my
codes to a public
Hello,
I'm interested in installing FreeBSD into a small form factor PC for
commercial use and was wondering whether there is a EULA in place for that
purpose. I would like to avoid the open source requirement of disclosing my
codes to a public community.
If you can provide some
I'm not a lawyer, but you need to read the BSD license. You can pretty much
do anything you want with something that is licensed by it.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:41 PM, Someth San s...@indesyne.com wrote:
Hello,
I'm interested in installing FreeBSD into a small form factor PC for
commercial
Greetings Someth,
With FreeBSD you are free use as you see fit. Think of the BSD license in terms
of 'Free' beer and not the freedom to look under the hood like some other mock
free licenses. If this were not the case then Apple would not have been able to
derive Mac OS X from FreeBSD and
GPL'ed software in the base system: https://wiki.freebsd.org/GPLinBase
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 9:58 PM, kpn...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 08:41:04PM -0500, Someth San wrote:
Hello,
I'm interested in installing FreeBSD into a small form factor PC for
commercial use and was
snip
How do you explain all the forks of UNIX each claiming their own
copyright. They all provide the same concept, use the same names for
their commands, use the same programming language, have a filesystem as
their base. Just where is the line drawn between a fork and a rewrite?
Hi,
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:26:15 -0400
Joe fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote:
snip
How do you explain all the forks of UNIX each claiming their own
copyright. They all provide the same concept, use the same names for
their commands, use the same programming language, have a filesystem
as
with no reference to the original code then it's a rewrite. I
suppose there are edge cases where a rewrite may include a portion taken
from the original (assuming compatible licensing), or where a fork has been
so heavily modified that little of the original remains.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith st...@sohara.org
On 4/1/2013 11:41 AM, kpn...@pobox.com wrote:
Copyright covers expressions of ideas. It does not cover the ideas themselves.
You can't copyright a concept, you can't copyright filesystems, and I
believe in the past few years a high court in the EU ruled that you can't
copyright a programming
kpn...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 09:22:22AM -0400, Maikoda Sutter wrote:
If I use the kernel as a basis for my own system and modify the kernel
should I still maintain the licensing of the kernel bits, or could release
it under it's own license?
For example: I would like
On Mar 31, 2013, at 6:39 AM, Joe fb...@a1poweruser.com wrote:
kpn...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 09:22:22AM -0400, Maikoda Sutter wrote:
If I use the kernel as a basis for my own system and modify the kernel
should I still maintain the licensing of the kernel bits, or could
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:39:29 -0400, Joe wrote:
Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued
a copyright on software?
With _which_ government? :-)
Basic understanding of copyright is: The stuff _you_ write
happens automatically under _your_ copyright, because you
are
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 16:31:43 +0200, Polytropon free...@edvax.de wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:39:29 -0400, Joe wrote:
Does one have to file legal paper work with the government to be issued
a copyright on software?
With _which_ government? :-)
Basic understanding of copyright is: The stuff
interpretation, maybe I didn't find
the right words. Obtaining copyright is implicit (by creating
stuff), giving up copyright is an explicit act.
Copyright information and licensing statements don't have to
be neccessarily included in the file in question, they could
also be in a file coming with the file
If I use the kernel as a basis for my own system and modify the kernel
should I still maintain the licensing of the kernel bits, or could release
it under it's own license?
For example: I would like to rewrite the headers to be 100% POSIX compliant
and I do like the BSD license, however I
As the FreeBSD license is less restrictive than the GPL, it's pretty
much safe to say that wherever you are permitted install GPL'd software,
you could substitute FreeBSD licensed software without legal penalty.
(Note: *install* -- redistribution is a different matter)
You do not have to
and Intellectual Property Licensing
Office: (319) 263-0985
Fax: (319) 295-2075
jegue...@rockwellcollins.com
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd
FBSD has it's own licensing. I'll defer to others as to the details, or visit
www.freebsd.org
- Original Message -
From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
To: questi...@freebsd.org questi...@freebsd.org
Sent: Tue Mar 23 09:40:15 2010
Subject: Free
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23/03/2010 14:40:15, jegue...@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
Free BSD representative,
I am inquiring if Free BSD is installable under the The GNU General Public
License (short: GNU GPL or simply GPL)? Need to verify that for the
requester of
answer would
be yes. However, I encourage you to read the licensing clauses
available on www.freebsd.org, specifically here:
http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html
This wiki gives a decent overview of the differences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_licence
Henrik
--
Henrik
subcontracts division.
Jack Guelff
Subcontracts Administrator
Software and Intellectual Property Licensing
Office: (319) 263-0985
Fax: (319) 295-2075
jegue...@rockwellcollins.com
I am NOT a lawyer , therefore my views can not be considered a legal advice
.
I
serious production level application must have some dtrace-like mechanism
inside to collect online information when needed. It is a shame that
because
of licensing issues, I will have to roll-my-own and re-invent the wheel
all
over again, probably with cruder and implementation that is more
need to understand the
licensing impacts of using a Free-BSD kernel.
Browsing the web about the BSD license just made me confused. Seems like to
understand these licensing issues you must be a lawyer.
I got the following questions regarding source license:
1.Do I need to open the source code
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:58:14AM +0300, son goku wrote:
[...]
Browsing the web about the BSD license just made me confused. Seems like to
understand these licensing issues you must be a lawyer.
Basically the BSD licence is: do what you like, but:
1. don't say you did it all
Jonathan Chen wrote:
4.Suppose the answer for 1-3 is no, s there any other reason why I need to
open the code.
Only if you feel like it.
I'd make that, Only if you feel like it or would like the warm glow of
giving back to the community (and of course all those extra eyes to
audit and
Thanks guys for the prompt answers!!!
It seems weird that code that uses dtrace must be opened. I mean every
serious production level application must have some dtrace-like mechanism
inside to collect online information when needed. It is a shame that because
of licensing issues, I will have
when needed. It is a shame that
because
of licensing issues, I will have to roll-my-own and re-invent the wheel all
over again, probably with cruder and implementation that is more flawed
compared to dtrace.
I wonder what all the proprietary modules for Solaris (VxVM jumps to
mind...) or BSD
that
because
of licensing issues, I will have to roll-my-own and re-invent the
wheel all
over again, probably with cruder and implementation that is more
flawed
compared to dtrace.
Why don't you write it and release it under a BSD license?
gr
Arno
attitude. I wish you the best of luck in coming to an
equitable and satisfying decision about licensing, and in future coding
efforts.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Mike Maples, as quoted by James Gleick: My job is to get a fair share
of the software
Chad Perrin wrote:
[..huge snip..]
I hope you get some value from my rambling.
I have gained very much value from what everyone has had to say, and I
want to thank everyone.
Although I have very much reading to do, I've come to a few conclusions
thus far.
One thing that did not cross my mind
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:09 AM, Steve Bertrand st...@ibctech.ca wrote:
I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know
that there are people here who can guide me off-list.
Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've
written numerous
On May 8, 2009 01:09:51 am Steve Bertrand wrote:
I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know
that there are people here who can guide me off-list.
Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've
written numerous network automation programs
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Mike Jeays mike.je...@rogers.com wrote:
On May 8, 2009 01:09:51 am Steve Bertrand wrote:
I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know
that there are people here who can guide me off-list.
Being a network engineer, I'm far from a
Mehmet Erol Sanliturk wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:38 AM, Mike Jeays mike.je...@rogers.com wrote:
I would keep away from the term 'public domain', which means you would lose
any rights to it whatsoever.
Public Domain does NOT invalidate Copyright : The owner of the work is the
On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 01:09:51AM -0400, Steve Bertrand wrote:
I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know
that there are people here who can guide me off-list.
Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've
written numerous network
is
effectively the public domain. If that's your actual goal, select a
license whose terms most closely approximate the public domain as you
understand it, and let that be your legally binding statement of intent
(for any jurisdiction that recognizes your copyright and your licensing
privilege under
I've got a question that is likely not suited for this list, but I know
that there are people here who can guide me off-list.
Being a network engineer, I'm far from a developer. With that said, I've
written numerous network automation programs (mostly in Perl), and have
developed several small
Ted Mittelstaedt schrieb:
- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kövesdán Gábor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries
[freebsd-emulation cut
On Feb 25, 2007, at 8:26 AM, Gabor Kovesdan wrote:
Thanks for the answers to both of you.
Szivesen
We just modify the packaging of the file: gzipped tarball instead
of floppy images, so it will be fine to redistribute them with the
pointer to the sources then.
Yes.
As a shameless
- Original Message -
From: Jeffrey Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kövesdán Gábor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: Licensing question about GPL/LGPL binaries
[freebsd-emulation cut from cc]
On Feb 23, 2007, at 5
Hi Folks,
we have a shiny new linux_base based on the Slackware distribution in
ports/104680. The only problem is with this, that Slackware people
distribute some binaries in ext2fs floppy images. We would like to avoid
using such, because that would need some kernel module trick in the port
[freebsd-emulation cut from cc]
On Feb 23, 2007, at 5:53 AM, Kövesdán Gábor wrote:
The question is that can we extract and provide these binaries in a
simple tar.gz file or is that considered a GPL/LGPL violation? The
sources are freely available on slackware.com, but we are not sure
On 06/10/06, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:31 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 05/10/06, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why
Intel
On Oct 5, 2006, at 7:31 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
On 05/10/06, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why
Intel Wireless devices do not work by default?
On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
My acquaintance with Unix started with FreeBSD, which I used for quite
a while before discovering OpenBSD. I now mostly use OpenBSD, and I
was wondering of how many FreeBSD users are aware about the licensing
restrictions of Intel Pro
On 05/10/06, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 4, 2006, at 7:46 PM, Constantine A. Murenin wrote:
Why are none of the manual pages of FreeBSD say anything about why
Intel Wireless devices do not work by default?
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=ipw
Hi,
My acquaintance with Unix started with FreeBSD, which I used for quite
a while before discovering OpenBSD. I now mostly use OpenBSD, and I
was wondering of how many FreeBSD users are aware about the licensing
restrictions of Intel Pro Wireless family of wireless adapters?
Why are none
Setting aside opinions on copy protection and licensing, suppose I wanted to
implement such a scheme.
The key itself might be a network license, or an encrypted file containing
license info and system-specific info. But the real issue is how to protect
the code that accesses the key. I know
On 10/12/05, Jonathon McKitrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Setting aside opinions on copy protection and licensing, suppose I wanted to
implement such a scheme.
The key itself might be a network license, or an encrypted file containing
license info and system-specific info. But the real issue
your patch and release a faster, more robust version
of your program.
Forget the licensing issues. Copy protection will never do as it's intended.
Please, seriously, dig back into its history of failure and see why nothing
good can come of this.
--
Kirk Strauser
pgpNtwI4CmxK0.pgp
-miscable, including the BSDL and
MIT/X11 licenses. See:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
You can even link GPL'ed code with proprietary code, but the result cannot be
redistributed per GPL #7. Such a combination can still be used by you as an
individual
and release *my* stuff as BSDL (and likely with a
notice about licensing for the next guy). The GPL does not even permit any
stipulation on which license a 3rd party may use. I'm sure that's a conscious
decision. The GPL code is protected already as it is.
I think you're seriously confused
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chuck Swiger
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 7:47 AM
To: Danny Pansters
Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [FYI] QT4 licensing looks very bad for *BSD
Also note that the Open Source Definition
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
[ ... ]
The copyright laws govern this sort of thing not the GPL, and
the courts have consistently held that a Copyright holder can
pretty much do what they want, and can put any kind of licensing
terms they want on something. In short a Copyright holders
right
don't think I got abusive or
impolite at any point. If anything I'm directly pointing out where problems
may/will arise (after re-reading I thought there's nothing wrong copying it
to the list):
-
LIcensing of new QT4
From: Danny Pansters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
I'm not so sure you guys have this right.
No BSD-licensed code is allowed to use a GPL library and remain
BSD-licensed. According to the GPL, Section 2:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part
Sorry for top posting...
The crucial words are: under the terms of this License. The confusion is due
to contradictions in the License. Which are theirs. And it's very disputed as
in might be void.
What GPL quotes can be used (remember it's a license not a law, BTW) for the
case when I use
On 6/30/05, Danny Pansters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for top posting...
The crucial words are: under the terms of this License. The confusion is due
to contradictions in the License. Which are theirs. And it's very disputed as
in might be void.
What GPL quotes can be used (remember
PS - Not that I'm claiming that BSD is a total giveaway, but as long
as the required notices are intact, there's nothing wrong with BSDL
code being imported to GPL code.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The
former licensing amounted to abide to the GPL or QPL as is normal for a GPL
project and in that case one could release code under BSDL and if anything
let the next guy worry about it (if they want to distribute a derivative).
I think
code under GPL. That's effectively a
requirement to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The
former licensing amounted to abide to the GPL or QPL as is normal for a
GPL project and in that case one could release code under BSDL and if
anything let the next guy worry about
a
requirement to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The
former licensing amounted to abide to the GPL or QPL as is normal for a GPL
project and in that case one could release code under BSDL and if anything
let the next guy worry about it (if they want to distribute a derivative
the free version one is
required to release their own code under GPL. That's effectively a
requirement to relicense which goes much further than the GPL itself. The
former licensing amounted to abide to the GPL or QPL as is normal for a
GPL project and in that case one could release code
Danny Pansters wrote:
Hey Chuck, thanks for answering.
No problem. (I'm not completely convinced this thread belongs on
freebsd-questions, but I don't know where else to move it to. :-)
Anyway, I contacted someone at TrollTech with pretty much what I said in my
last email, and got a
On Wednesday 27 October 2004 11:16 am, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Compared to other types of hardware, the support for wireless cards
is lacking on *BSD because many vendors don't provide documentation
or the cards require the upload of a binary firmware image that,
absurdly as it sounds, may
On Sunday, 31. October 2004 09:51, Jay Moore wrote:
2) Wouldn't voting with your pocketbook be more persuasive than whining? I
recently bought two WiFI cards that use the Prism chipset
(seattlewireless.net) 'cause they've got better support in the systems I
use. This purchase represents a
On Sunday 31 October 2004 07:41 am, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
2) Wouldn't voting with your pocketbook be more persuasive than whining?
I recently bought two WiFI cards that use the Prism chipset
(seattlewireless.net) 'cause they've got better support in the systems I
use. This purchase
On Sunday, 31. October 2004 18:21, Jay Moore wrote:
And I think you may under-estimate just how many people and organizations
are using open source and/or free software.
No, it doesn't work that way. You as a *BSD/Linux user were never meant to
purchase a $40 wireless NIC with a TI chipset
On Sunday 31 October 2004 11:36 am, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
And I think you may under-estimate just how many people and organizations
are using open source and/or free software.
No, it doesn't work that way. You as a *BSD/Linux user were never meant to
purchase a $40 wireless NIC with a
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ACX100 Firmware Licensing
Greetings
Since I do not know which one of you to contact, I am contacting all
of you in the hopes that someone can redirect me to the responsible
party who can help me.
I am contacting on behalf of the open source operating system called
Quick question
I'm not sure about the license that FreeBSD falls under. Are we allowed to modify
code (specifically /sbin/natd) and resell it commercially as part of a product??
Secondly, natd runs via divert in usermode. Is there something similar in kernel
mode? Kernelmode will
I omitted sending this reply to Chris to the list by mistake. Please
correct me if I am wrong.
---BeginMessage---
On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 11:06, Chris Knipe wrote:
Quick question
I'm not sure about the license that FreeBSD falls under. Are we allowed to modify
code (specifically
I'm getting lost in Suns marketing-oriented webpages, and I can't seem
to find the information I need.
I'm going to start doing Java development, and I'm trying to make sure
that all my legal ducks are in a row. Can someone point me to a
document that explains what's up with Java licensing. I
with Java licensing. I mean, if I
install jdk14 to develop java apps, can I resell those apps? There was
a warning that said something about not redistributing binaries, but
it's too vague to tell me whether that means bytecode genereated by
the java compiler, or binaries that would result from me
Bill Moran wrote:
I'm going to start doing Java development, and I'm trying to make sure
that all my legal ducks are in a row. Can someone point me to a
document that explains what's up with Java licensing.
There are two licenses you care about, the one with the Java 1.4 SDK, which says:
B
Hi everybody.
I have a problem with the vmware licensing file
after installing the vmware2 port.
I've received an e-mail with the evaluation key, copied it into
/home/user/.vmware, named it license2.0 but it don't seem to work.
The message I get is that there is no valid license for this version
with the vmware licensing file
after installing the vmware2 port.
I've received an e-mail with the evaluation key, copied it into
/home/user/.vmware, named it license2.0 but it don't seem to work.
The message I get is that there is no valid license for this version of
VMware workstation.
After
-
-
Hi everybody.
I have a problem with the vmware licensing file
after installing the vmware2 port.
I've received an e-mail with the evaluation key, copied it into
/home/user/.vmware, named
.
Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to
include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the
foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted
in its entirety.
William Hoskins
Director, Office of Technology Licensing
80 matches
Mail list logo
