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

Re: cc65 licensing

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 09:59:14AM -0400, Michael Poole wrote:
> There is an important difference between distributing and
> redistributing: Only the author can be the original distributor, so he
> may give the code to anyone he wishes.  All redistributors have to
> have license from the original author(s).

This is a constructed difference, not a real one. Everyone distributing code
needs the permission of the author, but if the author distributes his own
sources, it is pretty safe to assume that he has this own permission. If you
are distributing other peoples sources, it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to make sure
that you have the rights to do so, regardless from where you got these sources
and what the people you got them from are claiming. "Re-distributing" sources
(as you like to name it) is no excuse at all for ignoring that

> The code you (re-)distribute is partly under the new license and
> partly under the old license, but the source files (for example, those
> in the cc65-2.10.1/src/cc65 directory of cc65-sources-2.10.1.tar.bz2)
> refer only to the new license.

That is absolute nonsense and further proof that you didn't really look at the
stuff you're talking about. There is a copyright notice with a license
attached in all but 4 files (expr.h, expr.c, preproc.h and preproc.c). All
files that bear a copyright notice with my name are new and written by me (as
the copyright notice states clearly). All files without any notice contain old
code. And, before you come up with further accusations: No, I didn't remove
any copyright notices or licenses from the 4 files containing old code. The
original files didn't have any such attributions, and I just didn't add
something, because their copyright status is clearly noted in the docs (as it
was, when JRD distributed them).

So what you are writing is plain wrong. For anybody who wants to know, it is
clearly visible which code is new. Since the old files don't contain any
hints, the additional information in the docs (which are part of the package!)
applies to these files. The docs state clearly that the code is covered by the
old JRD copyright.

> You clearly don't think that means
> anything further.  Benjamin Cutler thought that the files are governed
> by the license described in them; I would probably make the same
> conclusion.

This conclusion is correct. But neither Benjamin, nor you looked into all
files. You both looked into just a few files and assumed that what you have
seen is valid for all. This is not what I would call a thoroughful handling of
licensing issues.

> It is even more confusing that the source files mention the new
> license but your non-source-code references to the old license say you
> use the old license for the compiler files. This confusion is
> compounded by the more restrictive license being buried in files with
> names like "doc/newvers.txt" or "src/cc65/copyleft.jrd" rather than
> being clearly visible in the top level of the tarball.

Let me repeat it: The old copyright/license clause is in the state it was when
I took over the old sources. New and rewritten code is clearly marked as such,
because it contains a new copyright/license clause. Just because you didn't
bother to spend more than 5 seconds looking at the source tarball doesn't make
your accusations valid.

> At best, it is misleading to write your new license in the files
> without mentioning that you consider them to also or instead be under
> a different, considerably more restrictive, license.  It is also
> misleading (again at best) for you to claim copyright to those files
> without mentioning that John Dunning owns the copyright on parts of
> them.

Would you please stop accusing me of theft and fraud? Any file bearing a
copyright notice with my name was written by me. I have never claimed that any
code from JRD was written by me. In fact, the docs state that this is not the
case. And contrary to the Debian supporter who started this thread, and who
was more than happy to declare the old JRD license invalid without even asking
me, I have always stated clearly and loudly that the compiler contains code
written by JRD. Just read my mail to Benjamin as a proof.

You are really making me upset. As you can see from Benjamin Cutlers attempts
to find old code in the current sources, I could have easily claimed that all
code was written by me - no one would have noticed. I haven't done that. In
fact, I have marked new and rewritten modules clearly as such by attaching a
notice, while leaving files with old code in the state I got them. In addition
to that, I have added notes about JRDs copyright to the new docs and to the
web page. I'm also distributing the original copyright.jrd file with the
compiler sources. And I'm stating that cc65 is not alone my work on every
possible occasion (for example when asked by Benjamin Cutler). After all this,
you're coming up with some ridiculous claims. You did even accuse me of
"muddling with licenses" without actually looking at the sources we're talking
about (your FTP download was done *after* the mail with the accusations). In
my eyes you are a real sucker. Go away.



Ullrich von Bassewitz                                  uz@musoftware.de

Attachment: pgpPDZnJGpNuK.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: