[Top][All Lists]

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

[bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup

From: Simon Josefsson
Subject: [bug-inetutils] Re: telnet cleanup
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:12:13 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.110011 (No Gnus v0.11) Emacs/23.0.94 (gnu/linux)

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <address@hidden> writes:

>    What is the proper way to solve this?  Shouldn't the files contain
>    a FSF copyright line?  And shouldn't future contributions, owned by
>    the FSF, be GPLv3+ rather than BSD licensed?  For example, see
>    patch below that just adds a GPLv3 template at the top.
> All contributions to inetutils are licensed under the GPL (latest
> version), and copyrighted by the FSF.  This is a simple mistake on our
> part that we forgot to add the relevant notice to this particular
> file.
> If you look at commands.c, then you will notice that the copyright
> notice comes _after_ the modified BSD license notice, it should really
> come before.  Nothing for you to worry if you don't feel inclined to
> fix it though.
>    +++ auth.c 2009-06-09 07:03:08.000000000 +0200
>    +  Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> All years that inetutils was modified should be listed here since the
> file was introduced.
> So,
> Copyright (C) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 2003, 2004, 2005
>               2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> Since we added the file in 1997 from BSD4.4-Lite, and we have done
> changes in inetutils each year since then.

Ah.  Would you like to commit this fix should I?  Relevant files are
libtelnet/{auth,enc_des,encrypt,misc}.c.  Or maybe just do it for all of

> I noticed that auth.c contains a MIT license, which seems to have a
> annoying clause,
> ... WITHIN THAT CONSTRAINT, permission to use, copy, modify, and
> distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose and
> [without fee] is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright ...
> `without fee', seems to mean that commercial distribution is not
> allowed, and thus making it incompatible with the GPL, and non-free as
> well.  Do people agree with this reading?  If so, we must rewrite, or
> remove these parts of inetutils.

That seems like the same problem as in GAP:

     Copying and distribution of this file, with or without modification,
     are permitted in any medium without royalty provided the copyright
     notice and this notice are preserved.  This file is offered as-is,
     without any warranty.

The intention is to permit both commercial and non-commercial
distributions, as far as I understand.

Btw, I suspect a lot of this code can be removed, it refers to old
authentication types (e.g., SPX, Kerberos 4, rsaencpwd) that no longer
works for other reasons.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]