Re: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
At 09:13 PM 5/27/2003, Steve Langasek wrote: I am assuming that all files without copyright statements are effectively under the OpenLDAP Public License. As Executive Director of The OpenLDAP Foundation, let me state that I believe your assumption to be incorrect. OpenLDAP Software is a combined, derived work. The COPYRIGHT file contained in the distribution details terms which apply to the work as a whole. The foundation generally regards the University of Michigan (U-Mich) to have significant rights to OpenLDAP Software as the primary copyright holder of the original U-Mich LDAP software distribution from OpenLDAP Software is derived. There were a number of files in U-Mich LDAP software distribution which contained no notice or a notice with no license statement. The OpenLDAP Foundation considers each of these files to be copyright by U-Mich and subject to the license which U-Mich provided in the U-Mich LDAP distribution. A copy of that license remains in the COPYRIGHT file now distributed with OpenLDAP Software. And, as stated in the OpenLDAP COPYRIGHT file, some files may be subject to additional restrictions. The OpenLDAP Foundation makes no assertion of compatibility or incompatibility between terms placed upon OpenLDAP Software by its copyright holders and terms placed upon other works by their copyright holders which OpenLDAP Software may be combined with. The OpenLDAP Foundation suggests that anyone redistributing software consult with legal counsel before doing so. Nothing in this message should be construed as legal advice. -- Kurt Zeilenga, Executive Director, The OpenLDAP Foundation.
Re: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
Steven, The OpenLDAP Foundation believes it the Regents' statement grants a license to redistribute derived works and is confident that the University, who is quite aware of our actions (as they actively participate in them), does not consider our actions to infringe on their rights. You are welcomed to your opinions. I suggest, however, that before you rely on your or other people's opinions (including ours), that you consult with a lawyer familiar with applicable law and the particulars of your situation. The Foundation sees no reason for it to expend its limited resources seeking clarifications which it believes are unnecessary. You are, of course, welcomed to expend time and energy seeking clarifications you think are necessary. I suggest you contact University's general counsel office (http://www.umich.edu/~vpgc/). Regards, Kurt
