Thread: 4 Clause license?
The PostgreSQL group has recently had a patch submitted with a snippet of code from FreeBSDs src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c?annotate=1.27 Is this intentionally under the 4 clause license or does the copyright from the website (2 clause) applied to everything that is non-contrib? http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html Thanks,Rod
On 2003.11.17 14:48:08 -0500, Rod Taylor wrote: > The PostgreSQL group has recently had a patch submitted with a snippet > of code from FreeBSDs src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c?annotate=1.27 > > Is this intentionally under the 4 clause license or does the copyright > from the website (2 clause) applied to everything that is non-contrib? The license in each file is the one that is authoritative. The file you are refering to has original 'The Regents of the University of California' copyright, so the "advertising clause" is revoked as per ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change . Hope this helps. Disclaimer: This is my own view of the issue, and I don't speak "officially" for the FreeBSD project. I'm sure somebody will correct me if I'm wrong :-). -- Simon L. Nielsen FreeBSD Documentation Team
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:48:08 -0500 Rod Taylor <pg@rbt.ca> wrote: > The PostgreSQL group has recently had a patch submitted with a snippet > of code from FreeBSDs src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c?annotate=1.27 This appears to be an original UCB Copyright notice. From /usr/src/COPYRIGHT: NOTE: The copyright of UC Berkeley's Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source has been updated. The copyright addendum may be found at ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change and is included below. July 22, 1999 To All Licensees, Distributors of Any Version of BSD: As you know, certain of the Berkeley Software Distribution ("BSD") source code files require that further distributions of products containing all or portions of the software, acknowledge within their advertising materials that such products contain software developed by UC Berkeley and its contributors. Specifically, the provision reads: " * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software * must display the following acknowledgement: * This product includes software developed by the Universityof * California, Berkeley and its contributors." Effective immediately, licensees and distributors are no longer required to include the acknowledgement within advertising materials. Accordingly, the foregoing paragraph of those BSD Unix files containing it is hereby deleted in its entirety. William Hoskins Director, Office of Technology Licensing University of California, Berkeley -- Alexander Kabaev
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 02:48:08PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote: > The PostgreSQL group has recently had a patch submitted with a snippet > of code from FreeBSDs src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c. > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c?annotate=1.27 > > Is this intentionally under the 4 clause license or does the copyright > from the website (2 clause) applied to everything that is non-contrib? > > http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html That copyright notice on the website should apply to everything that is not under some other license. Different parts of the system is under different licenses and copyrights depending on who wrote it. The mkdir.c *was* under the 4 clause license. However all material that was part of the original BSDs and thus was copyrighted by "The Regents of the University of California" has had its license changed such that clause 3 (the advertising clause) no longer apply. This would seem to include mkdir.c Most of the files in the source tree have not had their copyright notices updated to reflect this. See http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/license.html for details on this license. -- <Insert your favourite quote here.> Erik Trulsson ertr1013@student.uu.se
This whole thing is starting to make my head hurt. There has been more effort spent over this license issue than I would have spent if I hadn't taken the shortcut of using the FreeBSD code. I think maybe the simplest thing is for me to prepare a patch that rips that code out and replaces it with a (slightly simpler - less umask hacking required, I think) piece of code that I will write. I won't make the mistake of borrowing code again like this. (I naively thought using FreeBSD code would be safe, and was careful not to use any GPL code.) cheers andrew Terry Lambert wrote: >Erik Trulsson wrote: > > >>On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 02:48:08PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote: >> >> >>>The PostgreSQL group has recently had a patch submitted with a snippet >>>of code from FreeBSDs src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c. >>> >>>http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c?annotate=1.27 >>> >>>Is this intentionally under the 4 clause license or does the copyright >>>from the website (2 clause) applied to everything that is non-contrib? >>> >>>http://www.freebsd.org/copyright/freebsd-license.html >>> >>> >>That copyright notice on the website should apply to everything that is >>not under some other license. Different parts of the system is under >>different licenses and copyrights depending on who wrote it. >>The mkdir.c *was* under the 4 clause license. However all material that >>was part of the original BSDs and thus was copyrighted by "The Regents >>of the University of California" has had its license changed such that >>clause 3 (the advertising clause) no longer apply. >> >> > >People seem to frequently misunderstand what a license is, and >more specifically, what the conversion from a 4 clause to a 3 >clause license meant, in the case of the UCB License. > >This change does not apply to derivative works, only to the >original code itself. > >So if you went back and grabbed the mkdir.c code off the BSD >4.4-Lite2 CDROM, and used that, fine. > >If you grabbed the mkdir.c off the FreeBSD sources, and even one >line was modified by someone, then it's a derivative work, and, >unless you can also get written permission from the contributor, >it stays under the license from which it was derived. > >The announcement by the University only permits the change, it >does not mandate the change, for this very reason: otherwise >third party redistributed code would have sudddenly become >legally questionable. > >By the same token, if you dual-license some code under th GPL >and another license, and someone gets the GPL'ed version, and >makes changes, unless thy specifically permit it, the code >contributed back is only licensed under the GPL. This is why >SGI licensing the XFS code under the GPL was a stupid move: a >contributer contributing code back results in an improved code >base that can only be used under the terms of the GPL, and not >in SGI's commercial product offerings. I believe that SGI did >not actually expect any significant or worthwhile bug fixes or >enhancements to come from the GPL'ed code using community. > >In terms of getting written approval for the license change >from other contributors, this is basically the role that the >Regents of the University of California and the UCB CSRG were >fulfilling: a legal entity to whom such representations could >be made by contributors, and who could then legally forward >those representations to another. > >FreeBSD has no such legal entity, at present. The closest you >could come is perhaps the FreeBSD Foundation. Had there been >a FreeBSD Foundation from day on, to whom rights could have >been assigned by contributors (turning it into "The FreeBSD >Foundation and its Contributors"), then the license would be >capable of being modified after the fact. > >Without that, however, you must track down all of the individual >contributors to get the license changed. > > >My recommendation is to us the code off the 4.4 BSD-Lite2 CDROM, >if you can, live with the 4 clause license if the code contains >changes you need, if you can, or contact the contributors, if it >is a small enough job. If none of those things will work for you, >then start with the 4.4 BSD-Lite2 CDROM code, convert to the 3 >clause license, as permitted by the university, and then hack out >whatever modifications you ned on top of that for yourself. > >-- Terry > > >
> I think maybe the simplest thing is for me to prepare a patch that rips > that code out and replaces it with a (slightly simpler - less umask > hacking required, I think) piece of code that I will write. The FreeBSD folks sorted it out for us. Everyones names should be in the copyright for the file. The licence portion should be the 3 clause version -- no advertising clause. I think borrowing should be encouraged, and now that we know what license / copyright we need to carry over, this can be done without worry.
Rod Taylor wrote: >>I think maybe the simplest thing is for me to prepare a patch that rips >>that code out and replaces it with a (slightly simpler - less umask >>hacking required, I think) piece of code that I will write. >> >> > >The FreeBSD folks sorted it out for us. > >Everyones names should be in the copyright for the file. The licence >portion should be the 3 clause version -- no advertising clause. > Whose names? It's not easily discoverable from browsing the CVS tree. I would probably spend as much time, if not more, finding out as in rewriting the 40 or so lines of code required. > >I think borrowing should be encouraged, and now that we know what >license / copyright we need to carry over, this can be done without >worry. > > > > I'm a fan of borrowing, but not if it causes headaches. I'll hold off for a bit in case I've misunderstood something. <troll>Of course, now that SCO is claiming ownership of BSD code ..... </troll> cheers andrew
Rod Taylor wrote: > > I think maybe the simplest thing is for me to prepare a patch that rips > > that code out and replaces it with a (slightly simpler - less umask > > hacking required, I think) piece of code that I will write. > > The FreeBSD folks sorted it out for us. > > Everyones names should be in the copyright for the file. The licence > portion should be the 3 clause version -- no advertising clause. > > I think borrowing should be encouraged, and now that we know what > license / copyright we need to carry over, this can be done without > worry. Agreed --- don't get too focussed on it --- they are all pretty much the same, and if someone complains, we will rip it out and replace it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania19073
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > <troll>Of course, now that SCO is claiming ownership of BSD code ..... > </troll> Interesting thread that ... last I read on the FreeBSD lists was speculation that they would be going after ppl like Cisco (re: TCP/IP Networking Code) since there really is nobody else large enough to bother with ... its going to be interesting to see :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Based on the below wouldn't they also have to go after Microsoft? Marc G. Fournier wrote: >On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > >><troll>Of course, now that SCO is claiming ownership of BSD code ..... >></troll> >> >> > >Interesting thread that ... last I read on the FreeBSD lists was >speculation that they would be going after ppl like Cisco (re: TCP/IP >Networking Code) since there really is nobody else large enough to bother >with ... its going to be interesting to see :) > >---- >Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) >Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Based on the below wouldn't they also have to go after Microsoft? Depends ... does MicroSoft use BSD TCP/IP, or did they write their own? I know that Linux is not using BSD TCP/IP (or, at least, they didn't in their first 3 incarnations of the stack) ... > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > >On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > > > > > >><troll>Of course, now that SCO is claiming ownership of BSD code ..... > >></troll> > >> > >> > > > >Interesting thread that ... last I read on the FreeBSD lists was > >speculation that they would be going after ppl like Cisco (re: TCP/IP > >Networking Code) since there really is nobody else large enough to bother > >with ... its going to be interesting to see :) > > > >---- > >Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) > >Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > > > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > >TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > > joining column's datatypes do not match > > > > > > -- > Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC > Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. > +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com > Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org > > > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: >On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >>Based on the below wouldn't they also have to go after Microsoft? >> >> > >Depends ... does MicroSoft use BSD TCP/IP, or did they write their own? I >know that Linux is not using BSD TCP/IP (or, at least, they didn't in >their first 3 incarnations of the stack) ... > > > M$ have used BSD code in the past, I'm fairly sure, even if they no longer do. But they do have a license from SCO. OK, I know I shouldn't have raised this topic ... cheers andrew
--On Thursday, November 20, 2003 16:00:44 -0400 "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> wrote: > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Based on the below wouldn't they also have to go after Microsoft? > > Depends ... does MicroSoft use BSD TCP/IP, or did they write their own? I > know that Linux is not using BSD TCP/IP (or, at least, they didn't in > their first 3 incarnations of the stack) ... M$ also bought a LARGE license from SCO... -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
Hello, My understanding is that they use the BSD stack (at least as the basis) for TCP/IP. Windows that is. J Marc G. Fournier wrote: >On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > >>Based on the below wouldn't they also have to go after Microsoft? >> >> > >Depends ... does MicroSoft use BSD TCP/IP, or did they write their own? I >know that Linux is not using BSD TCP/IP (or, at least, they didn't in >their first 3 incarnations of the stack) ... > > > > > >>Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>><troll>Of course, now that SCO is claiming ownership of BSD code ..... >>>></troll> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Interesting thread that ... last I read on the FreeBSD lists was >>>speculation that they would be going after ppl like Cisco (re: TCP/IP >>>Networking Code) since there really is nobody else large enough to bother >>>with ... its going to be interesting to see :) >>> >>>---- >>>Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) >>>Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 >>> >>> >>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>>TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your >>> joining column's datatypes do not match >>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >>Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC >>Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. >>+1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com >>Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org >> >> >> >> >> > >---- >Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) >Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 08:34, Rod Taylor wrote:
> > I think maybe the simplest thing is for me to prepare a patch that rips
> > that code out and replaces it with a (slightly simpler - less umask
> > hacking required, I think) piece of code that I will write.
>
> The FreeBSD folks sorted it out for us.
>
> Everyones names should be in the copyright for the file. The licence
> portion should be the 3 clause version -- no advertising clause.
>
> I think borrowing should be encouraged, and now that we know what
> license / copyright we need to carry over, this can be done without
> worry.
Ignore that.. I hadn't read Terry's statement yet -- it got snagged by
the spam filter for some reason.
Since we have other code which has the same issue, I think this needs to
be solved. Can anyone show what Apple did?
--
Rod Taylor <rbt [at] rbt [dot] ca>
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc