On Thu, 15 Apr 2010 11:57:40 -0600 Ted Roby <ted.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, did umplawny have the original right to put his restricted > code into a project that was much more loosely licensed? > > If he did not, can I use his improperly licensed code (ie. does he > forfeit his license by superseding restrictions of the previous > license, or by not having permission to modify the source, and add > his own?) > > There's a tricky difference here I'm trying to get at. > Either his code must be removed (most likely), or there is a loophole > which allows me to circumvent his license in favor of the Diku or > Merc licenses. Also, umplawny did not go so far as to create a license > file representing his interests. He merely pasted his declaration > directly into the source (farther down than the header text) like > this: > > /* NOT TO BE USED OR REPLICATED WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION OF > AUTHOR */ > > > Again, this code umplawny introduced is commonly referred to as > "snippets". It adds features for users and admins alike, but it is not > critical to the functioning of the code as it was created by the Diku > and Merc teams. Ted, 1.) A license declaration within a source file takes precedence over a license in an accompanying file. 2.) Even if you could trace how the file got into the Diku or Merc project, the author still holds the rights, so it makes no difference if he gave permission to the *_DIKU/MERC_project_* (or some member thereof) to include his work. Rights are reserved *UNLESS* granted, so nothing is forfeit by its inclusion with the DIKU/MERC project sources. 3.) Since an OpenBSD port can be created to neither distribute a resulting package, nor mirror the distribution file (distfile --i.e. DIKU/MERC source code archive), a port is feasible. 4.) Even when no package is being distributed, since an OpenBSD port can include patches, things can very messy when modification is required and the license somehow forbids modification/distribution or requires special conditions for modification/distribution. If you started distributing a patch set for Microsoft Windows, they'd come down on you like a ton of bricks. A similar sad fate is potentially possible for patches against any work using a wonky licenses with (e)strange(d) conditions regarding modification or distribution. You should read up in the misc@ archives on the endless debates, headaches, and eventual resolution (removed from the OpenBSD ports tree) caused by the wonky modification/distribution conditions of original DJB license. 5.) As for your previous comment about you personally taking all the risks of any license issues, the answer is no, you cannot. Copyright law doesn't work that way. Any user of your port is potentially vulnerable to litigation, and if your port was included in the OpenBSD ports tree, then the OpenBSD project itself would be potentially vulnerable to litigation. All of the above means you only have two choices: A.) Contact the rights holder and convince them to change the license. B.) Maintain a port on your own, posting your updates to ports@, and do *NOT* expect (or ask for) it to be added to the OpenBSD ports tree. Sure, you could have figured all this out on your own with enough study, but even if you did, you'd still need a good lawyer to look it over, as well as *still* need to pay said good lawyer to defend you if a rights holder disagrees with your interpretation of reality. -jcr
