Menu
▾
▴
Re: [Firebird-devel] FB copyright and licence
|
From: Helen B. <he...@tp...> - 2002-03-27 00:39:03
|
At 02:24 PM 26-03-02 +0100, Grzegorz Prokopski wrote: >Hi! > >Legal stuff, read carefully ;-) Greg, this time, please read my comments right through to the end. >I used egrep on source and here's new copyright file header: > >This package was debianized by Grzegorz Prokopski <gr...@se...> on >Fri, 8 Mar 2002 22:26:36 +0100. > >It was downloaded from http://firebird.sourceforge.net/ > >Upstream Author(s): > Interbase team from www.borland.com - NO - the IPL=20 > copyright is owned by the company, not some "team" > IBPhoenix team from www.ibphoenix.com -NO > Firebird Project firebird.sourceforge.net - YES > Many peoples on the Internet - NO > >This software is > copyright (c) Borland International 1991, 1992, 1993 > copyright (c) 1984, 1993 by Borland International > copyright (c) 1986, 1990 by Interbase Software Corporation > copyright (c) 1986 by Groton Database Systems, Inc > copyright (c) 1989 The Regents of the University of California > copyright (c) 1991 by AT&T > copyright (c) 1996 by Andrey A. Chernov, Moscow, Russia > copyright (c) 1996 by Borland International > copyright (c) 2000 Inprise Corporation > copyright (c) 2001 IBPhoenix Most of the above is complete and utter rubbish. >You are free to distribute this software under the terms of >the InterBase Public License (IPL). It is MPL-type license. >Newest version should be on Borland's site, last time I checked it was: >http://www.borland.com/devsupport/interbase/opensource/IPL.html >Copy of the original IPL is presented below The Firebird source is covered by IPL 1.0. Subsequent versions of the IP= L=20 apply to Borland's Open Edition, not Firebird's code. >Or maybe You think I should include only two lines in copyright? >Which ones ? ;-) How should they look >(I don't know US law) Copyright is not a matter of US law, it is an international treaty. I=20 doubt that you understand international copyright law any better than you= =20 understand US law. It's not an issue. You should not be trying to chang= e=20 either the licensing OR the copyright statement. The simple answer is: don't try to modify the licence or the copyright n= otice. Why not focus instead on running your port against the TCL to the degree=20 that it can be released from Firebird with some sort of certification tha= t=20 says it is capable of running on Debian XYZ? You seem to be putting the=20 cart several hundred kilometres ahead of the horse.... > If You have some proposals how the above note should be modified - >please modify it so that it suit Your taste and send me. Er...umm, the boot is rather on the other foot. The Firebird project - n= ot=20 Debian or Grzegorz Prokopski - is responsible for deciding what goes out = in=20 a distribution. >Especially I can (in future) replace "Many peoples on the Internet" >with real names (and addresses). If somebody could send me the list >of developers - I could include it right away. It doesn't work this way. Authors can sign their modifications in the=20 source code; but we don't produce a "list of authors". There is no=20 practicable way that it would be possible. In short, it does not happen = in=20 a Firebird distribution. >Second thing is MORE important. As I am going to release first version >of FB 1.0 packages into main archive soon - I need to know what's the >license of the documentation. I think about 5 files here: >Firebird_v1_ClosedBugs.html Firebird_v1_OpenBugs.html >Firebird_v1_ClosedFeatures.html Firebird_v1_OpenFeatures.html >Firebird_v1_ReleaseNotes.pdf > >If nobody tells me what's their license or the applied license is >non-free I probably will just *ripe out* all those files, as I want >FB source package to reside in the main archive, not non-free. The html files are generated dynamically from a database. The releasenotes are compiled from Word 7 source which is held under stri= ct=20 version control (currently on my hard disk, until we can find a better wa= y=20 to do it). The copyright belongs to The Firebird Project. I repeat what I told you before - they are NOT source code, so source cod= e=20 licensing is not applicable. You seem totally confused about what constitutes copyright and what=20 constitutes licensing. >Thrid thing are architectures on which (under Linux) FB compile. > >From release notes I know that FB compiles on i386 systems and >on sparc. And those two arches will initially be put into >arches list. If You know there's sth here to be added - please >speak up. > > >Final words: >Please reply with concretes - discussion is nice of course, but now >I need informations and solutions so that I could finalize >the thing. Discussion seems to be essential, given your evident misconceptions about= =20 licensing, ownership, copyright and authority to distribute.... >If everything goes well (and woody isn't too fast released) >we should see FB 1.0 in woody. > >I can't promise it, but I'll do my best I (for one) admire your enthusiasm to get things done...but, from your=20 postings here, it is apparent that there are big gaps in your comprehensi= on=20 of what is involved in a release. Some of your recent questions even=20 indicate that you don't understand a lot about how the engine actually=20 works....and we have seen NO messages here from field testers... In the absence of any evidence of QA, your port is currently, at best, an= =20 early beta. Do you understand this? Do your contacts at Debian understa= nd=20 it? regards, Helen All for Open and Open for All Firebird Open SQL Database =B7 http://firebirdsql.org =B7=20 http://users.tpg.com.au/helebor/ _______________________________________________________ |
