Obsolete license terms at the FreeBSD website (Re:[FreeBSD-users-jp 75962])

[Simon L. Nielsen]

On 2003.08.28 11:23:38 -0700, Gary W. Swearingen wrote:
> IIJIMA Hiromitsu <delmonta at ht.sakura.ne.jp> writes:
> 
> > 1. About GNU LGPL:
> >
> > GNU Library GPL (LGPL) was renamed to GNU *Lesser* GPL (also abbreviated
> > as LGPL), with the reason described at
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html.
> 
> Strictly speaking, it wasn't.  From LGPL v.2.1, dated Feb'1999:

I don't care to much about what we call it.  From a quick grep through
the source tree I can see that it is refered to under both names, so I
think that when somebody updates the Legal/Copyright page both names
should just be used for the appropriate versions.

> > | 3.All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
> 
> > I think that the fact that this clause was deleted should be noted as
> > editors' note, with original text kept original, to show the historical
> > change.

I added the note from src/COPYRIGHT to the BSD license web page a few
days ago.

> Good idea.  Maybe something like this (only slightly facetious):
> 
>   This page links to copies of the licenses which are associated with
>   most parts of FreeBSD.  There are other licenses, some with terms
>   which might be considered more restrictive than the listed licenses.
> 
>   Various parts of FreeBSD are copyrighted by various parties.  Many
>   parts are copyrighted by multiple parties.  Copyright notices are
>   usually incomplete.  (FreeBSD archives contain much identifying
>   information, should anyone ever want to investigate ownership.)

While it might be true that some copyright statements aren't fully
updated, I don't think there is any reason to highlight this.

>   Those facts mean that users cannot expect to be able to identify
>   every copyright owner or find the owners' explicit offers to license
>   their software.  Users can only hope that courts would find implied
>   offers to use the software under the license commonly associated
>   with the portion of FreeBSD in question.  There is some legal risk
>   involved in the use of most open-source software, including FreeBSD.
>   Given the unusually generous nature of the most commonly used
>   licenses in FreeBSD, one could guess that the risk is less with
>   FreeBSD than some other operating systems.

IMHO this seems to be mostly a Linux/SCO comment which I don't think is
apropriate for the the FreeBSD website...

I think we should be rather careful what we put in the Legal/Copyright
page since it is, well, a legal page.  I do think that there should be
some more real text on the Copyright / Legal page, I'm just not really
sure what to write.

-- 
Simon L. Nielsen
FreeBSD Documentation Team
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-doc/attachments/20030905/d755c438/attachment.sig>