Hi Robert, On Friday 30 April 2004 00:18, Robert Millan wrote: > It contains code from FreeBSD "biosboot" bootloader, which as its > turn contains code from CMU Mach, whose license has the weird > requisite that you must send an email with the diffs if you modifiy > the file. GNU hackers involved on GNU Mach might have a better idea, > but I think asking for copyright assignment from CMU is a waste of > time.
Please read this page first: http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_10.html#SEC10 We shouldn't try to get a copyright assignment for code written for another package. About the license, I don't think the Mach license is incompatible against GPL. It just says: + * Carnegie Mellon requests users of this software to return to + * + * Software Distribution Coordinator or [EMAIL PROTECTED] + * School of Computer Science + * Carnegie Mellon University + * Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890 They don't say "require" but it's simply a request. So, if my undestanding is correct, its legal impact should be void. As I'm not a lawyer, I might be wrong. So I can ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you think I should confirm it. > ufs2.h is most likely extracted from the FreeBSD implementation of > UFS2 and copyrighted by Networks Associates Technology, Inc. License > is a 3-clause BSD-style one and seems ok, but I think we'll have > serious difficulties if we try to get copyright assigned from NAT. The same as above. Okuji _______________________________________________ Bug-grub mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-grub
