On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 06:24:26PM +0100, ropers wrote:
Rationale: It is a still surprisingly common misunderstanding that permissively licensed software wasn't copyrighted. Regardless of license choice (BSD, MIT, ISC, GPL, MS-EULA, etc.), software that is not in the public domain remains protected by copyright. Thus the claim that *only* the CD layout was copyrighted is factually incorrect. However, OpenBSD, though copyrighted, is freely (or permissively) licensed -- and therefore not substantially *restricted* by its copyright.
You are right that the original wording is technically incorrect, (although most people familiar with permissive software licenses would probably understand the intended message). What is also unclear, (at least to me), is what exactly, 'the CD layout', means. Obviously, a sector by sector copy of any of the offical discs from the 3-CD set would duplicate, 'the CD layout'. But if I want to make my own bootable Blu-ray disc, for a single architecture, using the files on the discs I purchased, is it necessary, for example, to master it with the distribution files in a different location other than /5.8/amd64 , in order to make 'the CD layout' different? Or is the fact that it's on a different type of optical media sufficient? Where is the line drawn? -- Tati Chevron Perl and FORTRAN specialist. SWABSIT development and migration department. http://www.swabsit.com
