License committee report for March 2008

Russ Nelson nelson at
Thu Mar 13 21:26:35 UTC 2008

Harlan Stenn writes:
 > > The board voted to accept the report with one change:
 > > 
 > > We request that the NTP License be changed so that the license (as a
 > > license model) uses generic language for the copyright holder (Mills)
 > > and trademark holder (UDel).  Obviously the NTP License as used by NTP
 > > should continue to say Mills and UDel.
 > As long as you aren't asking me to ask Dave to change *his* license that
 > should be no problem.

Well, see, here's the deal.  We actually talked about posting the
license as a model.  But then we wanted to give you the opportunity to
create a model yourself, since that's what we've done in the past.
And we didn't want to create confusion between our "NTP License" which
is a model, and the Mills instance of the "NTP License".

 > If you want to change the *model* copy, feel free.  If you want explicit
 > permission from Dave about this I'm happy to ask him.

I think that you could copy that web page to another one, and insert
generic language, point us to that as the NTP License model, and then
everybody would be happy.

 > And by my recollection, the original NTP license (before the "and
 > without fee" -> "with or without fee" change) was ripped from the old
 > MIT license.  After that change it agreed with (word for word) the ISC
 > license from some recent verison of BIND (before their latest change to
 > appease the FSF).

I looked at the MIT license as we have it recorded and, no, they're
substantially different.  The W3C license is closer but has its own
set of changes.

--my blog is at   | Software that needs
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | documentation is software
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | that needs repair.
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | 

More information about the License-review mailing list