On Jan 23, 2008 10:58 AM, Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here, for the record - and to save Francesco Poli the trouble ;-) - is the full text of the relevant section of the krb5 copyright file:
------------------------------------------- The following copyright and permission notice applies to the OpenVision Kerberos Administration system located in kadmin/create, kadmin/dbutil, kadmin/passwd, kadmin/server, lib/kadm5, and portions of lib/rpc: Copyright, OpenVision Technologies, Inc., 1996, All Rights Reserved WARNING: Retrieving the OpenVision Kerberos Administration system source code, as described below, indicates your acceptance of the following terms. If you do not agree to the following terms, do not retrieve the OpenVision Kerberos administration system. You may freely use and distribute the Source Code and Object Code compiled from it, with or without modification, but this Source Code is provided to you "AS IS" EXCLUSIVE OF ANY WARRANTY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR ANY OTHER WARRANTY, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. IN NO EVENT WILL OPENVISION HAVE ANY LIABILITY FOR ANY LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF DATA OR COSTS OF PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES, OR FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THOSE RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THE SOURCE CODE, OR THE FAILURE OF THE SOURCE CODE TO PERFORM, OR FOR ANY OTHER REASON. OpenVision retains all copyrights in the donated Source Code. OpenVision also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether created by OpenVision or by a third party. The OpenVision copyright notice must be preserved if derivative works are made based on the donated Source Code. OpenVision Technologies, Inc. has donated this Kerberos Administration system to MIT for inclusion in the standard Kerberos 5 distribution. This donation underscores our commitment to continuing Kerberos technology development and our gratitude for the valuable work which has been performed by MIT and the Kerberos community. -------------------------------------------------------- Moving on to consider the specific points raised: > * line 18-21: "Export of this software from the United States of America > may require > a specific license from the United States Government. It is the > responsibility of any person or organization contemplating export to > obtain such a license before exporting." > This section may not suit freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute copies > so you can help your neighbor. I don't think that clause is a problem. US export laws will (or won't) apply regardless of what the licence says, so this is really just a matter of information. It doesn't affect the DFSG-freeness of the software. > * line 81-83: "OpenVision > also retains copyright to derivative works of the Source Code, whether > created by OpenVision or by a third party." I think this could threat > this software freedom. This is rather an odd one. It's not clear in the context of the relevant paragraph whether this is just making a statement of fact about the Source Code as you may be using it, or whether it is seeking to claim ownership of any modifications that licensees make. If the latter, then I suspect that in a lot of jurisdictions it will not actually achieve the desired effect - for example, UK copyright law requires an assignment of copyright to be in writing and signed by the assignor. The question is then whether this interferes with software freedom. If you create a derivative work from the software, then (making the *big* assumption that the clause is legally effective) the copyright in that work, including your modifications, will vest in OpenVision. However, you still have the benefit of the licence terms as regards those modifications, so it doesn't interfere with your freedom on a practical level. What it does potentially mean is that OpenVision can *additionally* license your modifications under non-free licence terms, which many developers may consider undesirable. But OpenVision would be taking a risk if they actually did this, given that it is highly doubtful that they can claim legal ownership of the copyright in licensees' modifications on the basis of this licence provision. It probably wouldn't hurt to raise this with OpenVision, if possible. Do they consider this clause to give them ownership of copyright in any modifications made to the software, or is it simply saying that your rights under the licence do not affect the ultimate ownership of the copyright? I don't think the DFSG-freeness is affected in either event, but if OpenVision are trying to claim ownership of modifications then this is unusual, undesirable and probably ineffective. John (TINLA) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
