On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:30 AM, J.C. Roberts <list-jcr@designtools.org>wrote:

quoted text
>
>
>
> Ted,
>
> 1.) A license declaration within a source file takes precedence over a
> license in an accompanying file.
>


So, locality is more important than an air of officiality. Good.



quoted text
>
> 2.) Even if you could trace how the file got into the Diku or Merc
> project, the author still holds the rights, so it makes no difference
> if he gave permission to the *_DIKU/MERC_project_* (or some member
> thereof) to include his work. Rights are reserved *UNLESS* granted, so
> nothing is forfeit by its inclusion with the DIKU/MERC project sources.
>
> 3.) Since an OpenBSD port can be created to neither distribute a
> resulting package, nor mirror the distribution file (distfile --i.e.
> DIKU/MERC source code archive), a port is feasible.
>
> 4.) Even when no package is being distributed, since an OpenBSD port can
> include patches, things can very messy when modification is required
> and the license somehow forbids modification/distribution or requires
> special conditions for modification/distribution. If you started
> distributing a patch set for Microsoft Windows, they'd come down on you
> like a ton of bricks. A similar sad fate is potentially possible for
> patches against any work using a wonky licenses with (e)strange(d)
> conditions regarding modification or distribution.
>
> You should read up in the misc@ archives on the endless debates,
> headaches, and eventual resolution (removed from the OpenBSD ports
> tree) caused by the wonky modification/distribution conditions of
> original DJB license.
>
>
Going through them now via neohapsis.



quoted text
> 5.) As for your previous comment about you personally taking all the
> risks of any license issues, the answer is no, you cannot. Copyright
> law doesn't work that way. Any user of your port is potentially
> vulnerable to litigation, and if your port was included in the OpenBSD
> ports tree, then the OpenBSD project itself would be potentially
> vulnerable to litigation.
>
>
This sounds much more realistic, and is what I expected from the start.




quoted text
>
> All of the above means you only have two choices:
>
> A.) Contact the rights holder and convince them to change the license.
> B.) Maintain a port on your own, posting your updates to ports@, and do
> *NOT* expect (or ask for) it to be added to the OpenBSD ports tree.
>
>
What about a completely unrelated project?

If I have clean licensing on everything, can
I then ask for addition to the tree?

Or should I just neatly post to ports@ and see what happens?



quoted text
>
> Sure, you could have figured all this out on your own with enough study,
> but even if you did, you'd still need a good lawyer to look it over, as
> well as *still* need to pay said good lawyer to defend you if a rights
> holder disagrees with your interpretation of reality.
>
> -jcr
>

Thanks for your time. I have had to work with some Copyright
and NDA in my career. It sure is a mess....