[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

BSD license, core libraries, and NetBSD

A licensing issue (or maybe not an issue) for -legal:

1) The NetBSD source tree (that is, the sources which can be found at the
   official NetBSD CVS server, and from which the NetBSD releases are
   drawn) has a number of sections to it, with widely varying licenses
   (though most can be classed as 'old BSD', 'revised BSD', 'derived from
   old BSD', 'GPL', or 'LGPL').

2) Not all of the sections in 1 are relevant to the Debian/NetBSD port.
   In fact, quite a few of them are third-party software which is already
   packaged separately under Debian. However, the sections which can best
   be classed as "the kernel" (sys/ in the CVS tree), "system libraries"
   (lib/ and libexec/), and potentially some portions of the userland
   (bin/ and specific cases in usr.bin/ and usr.sbin/) are necessary. A
   preliminary inspection indicates that most of the required pieces fall
   under the old BSD license, with a few under the revised BSD license or
   the GPL. The majority of these have copyrights by either UCB or The
   NetBSD Foundation, Inc. (TNF)

3) TNF has previously expressed a resistance to requests to move from an
   old BSD license to a revised one (that is, to drop the advertising
   clause). While it may be possible to convince them to change this at
   some point in time, it would be infeasible to assume that this can be
   accomplished soon, if at all.

4) The NetBSD source tree has a set of legal files which are generated
   based on a combination of a shared list of credits and an architecture
   specific list of credits, to satisfy the numerous advertising clauses
   found in the source tree. However, this file assumes that the entire
   source tree is in use, and currently has no provisions for rebuilding it
   based on a partial source tree such as the Debian/NetBSD port would use.
   (These are found in src/distrib/notes/{common/legal.common,<arch>/legal)

5) While significant portions of the code have been retroactively
   relicensed by UCB's fiat, there remain significant portions which have
   not, as they are not under UCB's copyright.

The questions:

A) Is it feasible to have an old-BSD license based kernel and system
   libraries? This appears, on casual inspection, to qualify for the
   purpose of the GPL's 'system library' exception, in both spirit and
   letter, but I would hate to get bitten later.

B) What is required to meet the advertising requirements of a 4-clause
   BSD license? Would it suffice to have the entirety of the list in the
   copyright file, and a pointer from release announcements?

C) Is it acceptable/sufficient to have a superset-list of the credits, or
   do we need to go through every file in the relevant parts of the tree
   and ensure that we have the correct clause information? (Something that,
   by current reports, even the current NetBSD core team handles on a case
   by case basis, rather than a full audit).

D) Anything else...
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

Attachment: pgpCQXSY4nJ6l.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: