login
Search
"Firmware (if not stored in a seeprom in the device) for the uticom(4). This was compiled by someone from the full source code published by TI under a surprisingly free license (which is probably not even actually enforceable in any way, since they forgot to put the phrase Copyright above it... where do they hire their lawyers?? Anyways, everyone benefits.)"
Declare or not declare
From http://kerneltrap.org/OpenBSD/Stealing_Versus_Sharing_Code, Theo wrote:
And now he's saying that since TI did not declare copyright, the license might not even be enforceable. Either Theo finally forgot to engage his brain and do some research before posting, or I'm missing something here.
How much has been omitted?
I think his point has been misunderstood.
Of course there is an implicit copyright on the firmware.
But if - unlike all previous TI firmwares - the legal departement has allowed it to be released without an explicit copyright notice, one will wonder if they forgot other parts of the license as well....
Nothing.
The license clearly conveys the rights which the licensee has and does not have. It includes a liability clause. It explains about patents and trademarks. I'd say this license is fairly complete. (It has many more limitations than most modified BSD licenses, for example.)
If anything, I'd speculate that TI's legal department deliberately left out a copyright notice; probably because they feel it's not necessary. And they're probably right.
Theo consistently says
Theo consistently says whatever gives his standpoint an advantage.
Doesn't everyone ?
Doesn't everyone ?
Sorry that comment was
Sorry that comment was supposed to be in the context of Theo de Raadt "consistently says whatever gives his standpoint an advantage."
Totally agreed. In this
Totally agreed.
In this specific example he is wrong - the author does not explicitely HAVE to state his copyright, copyright is AUTOMATICALLY granted.
I find it hilarious that Theo himself insults others "because they dont understand law" or "encourage others to break law", but then he himself shows that he is clueless. Seems he encourages to break the law, doesnt he? Cuz he claims, no copyright license = fair and free game to use.
I think everyone here is
I think everyone here is making assumptions as to what Theo de Raadt is claiming, and I bet not one of you is a lawyer either.
In this case ...
Yes, he has said this himself (as quoted earlier).
And I find it hilarious that you jump to the conclusion that Theo is wrong without even considering the idea that you might have missed something. It's like the newbie programmer who thinks there's a bug in the compiler or library when his code is not working.
Theo is no idiot and I doubt very much that he's already forgotten about his "lecture on copyright law" just a month or two back.
This cvs commit message is pretty much out of context for anyone not reading source-changes regularly.
His measuring with variable
His measuring with variable standards makes his remarks unworthy of quoting or commenting on.
/me presses the post button too quickly.
CVS
Well, this is just a cvs commit message and probably not meant as a public statement (although it's made in public since their repository is accessible by anyone).
At any rate, his statement is rather disappointing (unless "the devil is in the details" and I'm not seeing it). Just recently he made a lot of noise trying to explain how copyright law works, and now he seems to have forgotten all about it.
Or perhaps not so free?
Or perhaps not so free?
Anyways, I don't think it needs to say its copyright, I believe works gets automatically put under copyright.
Though, may vary from country to country...
Lack of Copyright notice
Although I appreciate that De Raadt is interested in the legal field, I don't think his legal claims have much of a basis.
Quoting from a candidate attourney specializing in copyright and related issues :
And from a related page:
Let's look at the license itself. It reads:
What a judge might also look at is the author's intent. He would ask himself, did the author intend for this work to be in the public domain? I think the intent is clear; the author did not intend or ever imply so. In fact, copyright is mentioned to apply to the Program several times in the license.
I think it is fairly safe to conclude that, in fact, copyright applies to the firmware and De Raadts statements to the contrary are, in fact, baseless and moot.
It occurs to me that in previous legal discussions De Raadt has referred to the Berne convention, but I suspect, based upon the above, that he does not understand it very well.
License
Here's a link to the license in question.