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

Re: A possible GFDL compromise

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 08:52:29PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Luckily, we only have a few (one?) large components of Debian that are
> under a 4-clause BSD license [OpenSSL]. I for one, will be glad when
> gnutls completely supplants the use of openssl.

This may change, if ftpmasters accept netbsd-kernel-source-* packages once
they've stabilized enough to be worth packaging. Conversely, however, I'm
currently putting in a great deal of manual effort to hunt down holders of
copyrights in the source tree that have a 4-clause license, try to convince
them to relicense, and get those changes committed to the NetBSD core tree.

So far, there are approximately 5000 fewer files (out of around 15,000;
mostly pure UCB text that never got updated) with a 4-clause BSD license,
if you consider all pending patches as well as those already confirmed and
applied. Some large portion of the rest are held under the copyright of The
NetBSD Foundation (rather than individual authors), and can be removed in
one fell swoop if and when TNF officially decides to permit it.

That question has been under discussion for many months, at this point, and
for all I know may be discussed for many more, but it *is* at least under
discussion (and some number of NetBSD developers that I contacted about
other occurances have said they're refusing to assign copyright unless and
until TNF switches to a 3-clause license).

RMS left CC'ed largely because he might find it intriguing, given that
NetBSD was the concrete example given in one of the origional arguments.
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU NetBSD/i386 porter                                        : :' :
                                                                     `. `'

Attachment: pgpKt9DUMh04f.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: