On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 02:10:42AM +0100, Brian Somers wrote:
> > +-------[ Brian Somers ]----------------------
> > | > Check with Charles to see if he really wants to abandon copyright claims
> > | > to his code, or whether he was really implying some really liberal open source
> > | > license.
> > |
> > | With the BSD Copyright (only) he keeps the intellectual copyright on
> > | the original. That's what I've changed it to (as per his agreement).
> >
> > Oh, I thought he put in the comment to the effect it was in the Public Domain,
> > if you did that you're naughty! d8)
> >
> > If he did that, he probably needs to rethink it.
>
> He originally wrote it to say it was in the public domain. I asked
> him if he minded me making it a BSD license and he said ok.... only I
> didn't do the whole job :*)
If you look at the history of the files, they were imported into
FreeBSD with the statement that they are public domain. I don't think
there is any way he can take that back and claim copyright over
them.
Now, as to whether anyone can now claim a copyright over the
contents since (not very substantial) changes have been made is
something for lawyers to settle. It is now written policy, and I
believe it was the understood, unwritten policy in the past, that any
patches and additions to a file in FreeBSD are governed by the
existing licensing of the file unless otherwise stated. This would
indicate to me that this file is arguably still public domain.
Again, IANAL. For now, as they stand, the licensing text within them
is contradictory and should be "fixed." As for whether it's getting
fixed the "right way" is something only a lawyer could answer, and I
really doubt anyone is ever going to care enough about these couple of
files to pay a lawyer to have a look.
--
Crist J. Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
