El 07/10/2010 02:18 a.m., Rob Farmer escribió:
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 20:38, Gonzalo Nemmi<gne...@gmail.com> wrote:
As a lawyer, no matter how much I review your set up, it´s a _fact_ that a
license place in a place like
/usr/src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/hardware/hwsleep.c, that is to say, lost
amongs a gazillion files: _will_ scape any review.
Furthermore, you can count on legal advise about the thing you tell you
lawyer to review, but if you ignore _what_ you want to get reviewed: you
can´t count on anyone knowing it for you.
I would assume that such a review would involve extracting all the
licenses in the source tree, eliminating the duplicates, and having
those reviewed. I'm saying I don't find the "oh I missed that one"
argument convincing, because if there is the possibility of missing a
license, then you aren't looking closely enough in the first place.
I would assume you already did that before walking into my office to ask
me about the set of licenses up for a review ... otherwise, there´s no
way to me to look close enough where I wasn´t asked to look ...
If you go tell your Dr. you have a simple cof and a runy nose, he won´t
ask you to go trhough a colonoscopy or a brain tomography ... and,
_please_, _by_all_means_ don´t count on him finding anything on your
colon or in your brain in that case.
This license is not just in
src/sys/contrib/dev/acpica/hardware/hwsleep.c - it is in all the files
within the acpica contrib directory, plus the upstream vendor states
that it applies to the entire tarball on their website. You should
reasonably expect that each piece of software (ie directory) within
contrib may be under a different license and needs to be reviewed.
It´s not about what a lawyer or an accountant expects or doesn´t.
It´s about what _you_, who know your way around your business (only you
know your code, the licenses it contains and where) a lot better than he
(who actually only knows "his way around his business"), ask him to
review. If you didn´t: don´t count on him jumping at you answering a
question that was never asked in the first place, regardless of whether
the license is on every acpica file or any file on the scheduler or on
the bluetooth, usb or tcp/ip stack or anywhere else ...
Making the license more visible may be a good idea, but doesn't
materially change the situation any.
It does by making it visible and thus telling potential
exporters/re-exporters "watch out for this one. Ask your lawyer about it´s
terms and conditions".
What I meant by "doesn't materially change the situation any" is that
everything exported from the US should be considered under export
restrictions unless proven otherwise. Jung-uk Kim says:
Historically FreeBSD never touched the license header. However, I am
going to do it next time to avoid confusions.
( http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2010-October/222451.html
)
I don't think this makes a bit of difference (it fact it would be
somewhat misleading) since the export restrictions are a valid law and
dropping clauses from the license doesn't change that - are you saying
I'm wrong here?
Im saying what I already said.
Best Regards
Gonzalo Nemmi
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
