[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: OpenLDAP Licenseing issues
At 09:23 AM 5/23/2003, Stephen Frost wrote:
>* Kurt D. Zeilenga (Kurt@OpenLDAP.org) wrote:
>> s/license/complete copyright notice/
>> That is, read the whole COPYRIGHT file (and then read some more).
>Very well, I've done so. The results of my work bring up a number of
>questions, perhaps opening up a larger can of worms than was expected.
The following is not legal advice. You should consult your
own counsel for legal advice. Nor is a statement of
position from the OpenLDAP Foundation. Nor should my comments
be considered definitive answers. I am not a lawyer.
>I found a total of 15 distinct licenses in the OpenLDAP source tree as
>of version 2.1.17. I also found some files which had copyright
>statements alone with 'All Rights Reserved.' which would imply that they
>are not distributable. These files and their associated copyright
>statements are at the end of this email.
>A number of files did not include a Copyright statement at all.
It might be appropriate consider whether the files are intended to
be distributed individually or part of a larger work. If it unclear
to you which terms apply, then you likely should consider it "All
Rights Reserved" until you get clarification from the distributor
as to who holds copyright on it. For OpenLDAP Foundation distributed
files, you can contact <email@example.com>.
>Of those 15 licenses there are a few questions when it comes to GPL
I won't attempt to answer license interaction questions.
I'm not a licensing expert and nor do I care to become one.
>The TimesTen Performance Software files
>appear to likely be distributed illegally.
I suggest you send a note to firstname.lastname@example.org
if you think specific material may be included in the
distribution without permission of the copyright
>These files themselves are placed in the public domain, as much as they
>can be considering I copied the licenses texts from copyrighted files.
>I would encourage their inclusion in the OpenLDAP tree as a quick
>reference to all of the licenses and what files they cover. As
>opporunity allows I may look at the differences between 2.1.17 and
>2.1.20 to see if any changes need to be made.
As always, use the ITS to offer contributions.
>I am cc'ing debian-legal on this so that they may look at the list and
>the set of licenses and give their opinion on the subject.
I don't have little to say on this subject, so I've dropped the cc.
You are welcomed to forward my comments to others (as long as your
preserve the disclaimer I made.)