> On Sat, Jan 26, 2008 at 01:16:14PM +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> Frank Fegert wrote: >> >On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 09:25:24AM +1300, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> >>>i did a quick hack and patched Solaris privileges support into >> pinger.c >> >>>from squid-2.6.STABLE18. This should allow to run pinger w/o >> setuid-root, >> >>>while still being able to access ICMP-sockets. The $SQUID_USER gets >> the >> >>>additional PRIV_NET_ICMPACCESS rights via: >> >>> /usr/sbin/usermod -K defaultpriv=basic,net_icmpaccess $SQUID_USER >> >>> >> >>>While probably not so interesting for the general public, could >> someone >> >>>with a bit more squid-code knowledge than me take a look at the >> patch? >> >>>I just want to make sure i didn't inadvertedly break something else >> ;-) >> >>Interesting and useful. Thank you. >> > >> >Thank you for your fast reply. I should add that i didn't invent the >> >wheel here ;-) There is a quite nice documentation on the subject: >> > http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/816-4863/chap1-intro-net-01 >> >so credits should go towards Sun ;-) >> >> Ah, in which case we have to ask: Is the code copyright available under >> GPL v2 and later Lisences? >> >> The copyright issues have been getting a bit of cleanup lately and we >> don't want to go backwards if possible. > > Good point, but (luckyly) IANAL. Sun indicates in the first page of the > document mentioned above, that the information in the document is subject > to Suns or a third partys copyright. Sound like a standard text blob, but > does that also include work derived from the document? >
You mean the "Book information" page? my reading of that it mentions a lot of sources, OpenSource and others. Without mentioning any conditions of those sub-liscencing. Without specifically mentioning anything about rights of users or readers it does clearly deny any uses where the 'information contained within' might reach a mysterious listof poeple any countries the US don't like. Nasty. The way copyrights seem to have been done in squid. If you have generated the code from a non-copyright brief description we should be able to accept it as your community work. If you have duplicated code or pseudo algorithm, from a copyright or limited use source (I'm not sure if tha US export law counts) we need to be able to verify that source allows any re-working freely, with its explicit copyright added to the squid bunch. Amos
