[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>But wait... you can't retroactively change the license on a piece of
>software that you have already distributed and the user has already
>accepted. If the OpenBSD team has been developing against software
>developed under one set of terms, can't development continue from that point
>ignoring the later versions coming from the official maintainer under new
Legally in a court of law, this "changed interpretation" might
not stand up, but it's not about that.
1) Darren's interpretation of his license is that modified
versions are not allowed and that they *never were*. while legally we
might get around that we should respect that, if we wanna be nice
guys and do the right thing.
2) Since we have to be able to distribute modified versions
(according to our project goals at http://www.openbsd.org/goals.html)
it's not going to work, having that code there taints the tree. Both
OpenBSD and other vendors can't both respect Darren's wishes and
distribute the code with our kernels in a manner that makes users
believe the whole thing complies with our stated license policy. If
we dodge the issue and distribute it, all it means is more people
think the ipf code is free, because it's in our kernel, when free
versions of ipf aren't what the author wants. It's a disservice
to our users and disrespectful to the author.
I'm sure that development of appropriate replacements under
a BSD licence won't be an issue for next release in any case.
- Re: ipf
- From: "Joseph W. Shaw II" <email@example.com>
- Re: ipf
- From: "Chris Hedemark" <firstname.lastname@example.org>