Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Tue May 08 2001 - 18:06:39 CDT
This has been discussed on mailing lists couple years back, the argument
that was made by authors of the software (BSD in particular) was that if
someone is using it and is promoting it in their OS (program name being
the same), then it is inproper for them to put source code under that OS
license. I'll give examples of apache license, since I know it best:
1. Apache license says "Products derived from this software may not be
called Apache nor may Apache appear in their name, without prior written
permission of the Apache Software Foundation" what it means is that if
you distribute dervived (i.e. source code is modified) software that
is named apache you promote it as apach then either you need to get
permission to put it under your license or if you do not the software
remains under apache license and any modifications you make as well
and apache license means source is open to everyone. In fact I do not
believe you can even put binary under your lincese without changing
2. This one is from BSD license, similar argument to above:
"Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must
not be misrepresented as being the original software. " (this is from bzip)
3. Artistic license is even more plain than all above:
You may otherwise modify your copy of this Package in any way,
provided that you insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating
how and when AND WHY you changed that file, and provided that you do at
least ONE of the following:
a) place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them
Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet or an
equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major archive site
such as uunet.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include
your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.
b) use the modified Package only within your corporation or organization.
c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict with
standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide separate
documentation for each non-standard executable that clearly documents
how it differs from the Standard Version.
On Wed, 9 May 2001, Crispin Cowan wrote:
> williamelan.net wrote:
> > Regarding source, its not true about GPL only code, but BSD and Artistic
> > and majority of other non-GPL software licenses all have a provision that
> > if someone chooses to release a binary and it has the same name as original
> > program and used in place of it, then they HAVE TO release source code with
> Can you cite where you got this claim from? I don't believe it to be true:
> * Here's the BSD license http://openlinks.linuxguru.net/support/license.php
> It's very short, and doesn't say any such thing.
> * The FSF classifies http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html licenses as
> "copyleft" and "non-copyleft" where only the "copyleft" class compels you to
> distribute modified source, and BSD is classified as "non-copyleft."
> It is also not relevant: WireX does distribute modified source where we have made
> modifications (and where we have not made modifications, but so what? ;-) It is
> only the binaries themselves that we claim to be proprietary. It is a *lot* of work
> to re-compile the world, and we charge for it.
> What William says is true of the Artistic license
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.html but WireX is not claiming
> proprietary interest in binaries derived fromArtistic-licensed programs.
> Crispin Cowan, Ph.D.
> Chief Scientist, WireX Communications, Inc. http://wirex.com
> Security Hardened Linux Distribution: http://immunix.org
-- William Leibzon Elan Communications Inc. Office & Support: 408-519-6243 Sales: 877-ELAN-NET or 650-333-7658
_______________________________________________ Immunix-users mailing list Immunix-usersmail.wirex.com http://mail.wirex.com/mailman/listinfo/immunix-users