---- START NEW MESSAGE --- Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com [209.119.0.109] by dpmail10.doteasy.com with ESMTP (SMTPD32-8.05) id A6401A0D003C; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 08:41:36 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <16.00CC1053@cherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:16:41 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 2155 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:16:33 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 6074; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:15:19 -0500 Received: from durango.natetech.com [216.17.150.117] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with ESMTP ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:15:18 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by durango.natetech.com Received: from [207.239.243.99] (helo=natetech.com) by durango.natetech.com with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1AlsLY-0008OQ-89 for PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:15:20 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031207 Thunderbird/0.4 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8C4AF854-508F-11D8-9E8E-000A95E5DF26@mac.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <4017E015.6090206@natetech.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:15:17 -0700 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list From: Nate Duehr Organization: NateTech Subject: Re: SCO lobbying Congress about Linux To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: <8C4AF854-508F-11D8-9E8E-000A95E5DF26@mac.com> Precedence: list X-RCPT-TO: Status: U X-UIDL: 371856129 William Chops Westfield wrote: > You run into interesting sets of confusion with things like libraries > that were originally written separately, and are now included in > linux distributions, BSD distributions, and also available on their > own. Which licenses actually apply? What if you find the identical > code with different license agreements attached? (most recently, > I ran into this trying to find open source "curses" screen libraries.) This is why you choose to use Debian Linux for your research, of course -- when you're researching the appropriateness of software for your project! :-) Debian is also militant about not including non-Free (as in Freedom) software and even currently rejects some of the GNU documentation and books because the GNU documentation license doesn't live up to the Debian Free Software Guidelines document/rules. -> Not having both "pristine" source and any changes separated out, is a Critical level bug. -> Not having a license included inside the package, is a Critical level bug. -> Debian stable is never released with Critical level bugs. The locations of all installed software must match the package maintainer's policy. You'll never find the license in /usr/local/etc/license-for-package for one package, and /home/packagename for another, for example. Everything in its place -- you'll find documentation in /usr/share/doc/. All original licenses MUST be included in source packages, or the package cannot be included in the release version. No RPM-based Linux distribution provides this level of organization. If it's in Debian stable, and you don't have a "non-free" line in your /etc/apt/sources.list -- you can be assured there's more fanatical people than you about Free Software making sure the licenses are 100% Free. It's a great "tool" in this fashion. Nate Duehr, nate@natetech.com -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics .