Is this better for tomsrtbt?

Tom Oehser tom at
Sun Apr 22 23:21:40 UTC 2001

> Did you add your own copyright notice to these programs?  I'm digging
> around for copyright notices, they're a bit scarce....  You ought to be
> covered under GPL in this case.

The GPL says:

  4. You may not ... sublicense ...


  6. ... You may not impose any further restrictions ...

It is pretty clear that I *cannot* require my own copyright be carried.

> Incidentally, where's TRBs sources?

It depends which sources you want, give me a specific component.  For example,
if you want the 'dd' on tomsrtbt, my preference is that you get it directly
from me, either ftp, http, or email; given both that I have modified it and
that the 3.13 version of fileutils would be hard to find otherwise.  If you
want the 'lilo', for example, on tomsrtbt, my preference is that you download
it from the canonical archive, as I have not patched it and it is current; but
if you want it directly from me I can provide it via either http, ftp, or email.
There is no unified source tree or combined build process for tomsrtbt, for the
purpose of providing the source code each component is a seperate entity, and
given that there does not exist a unified source tree, I can't give it to you.
Let me know any particular source you want and how you would prefer to get it.

> ...and have you mentioned this to the MuLinux author?   A lot of license
> enforcement starts out with "say, I noticed" type letters.

The point is, when I distributed it 2 years ago, I did *not* have such a
stated requirement.  I really don't care enough in this case to pursue it.

> > I want to prevent people from taking the binary objects and copying
> > them into their own mini distributions without mentioning where they
> > got them.
> If you're modifying works based under the GPL and BSD licenses, the
> existing licenses give you this right.  I think you're asking for what
> you already have.

Nope.  They are free to redistribute the binaries without mentioning anything.
Moreover, they are free under 3(c) to answer a request for the source code by
referring the requestor to me.  (Though I'm a little unclear about the 3-year
thing.  What happens if they are counting on 3(c), and my 3-year period lapses,
well, *his* 3 year period hasn't lapsed, so the implication is that at the end
of the 3rd year, he had better get the source while he still can...


More information about the License-discuss mailing list