Subject: Re: CMU copyright on pppd bits

From: Karl Fox <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2001 23:19:46 -0400

Hi Paul,

Yes, I once used that same software for similar purposes.  I don't see, 
however, any restriction on modification.  If you're referring to the 
requirement that a) CMU be acknowledged and b) CMU's name not be used to 
promote derivative products, then I'm pretty sure there's a middle ground.  
We put CMU's name in the acknowledgements section of our documentation, but 
we didn't go around saying, "Hey, this is CMU code, so you should buy it."

I don't think you have anything to worry about.

Karl

At 09:23 PM 6/2/01, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>It has recently been drawn to my attention that much of the pppd
>package that I maintain has a copyright notice on it that doesn't
>permit modification.  Here is an example:
>
>/*
> * Copyright (c) 1989 Carnegie Mellon University.
> * All rights reserved.
> *
> * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
> * provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
> * duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation,
> * advertising materials, and other materials related to such
> * distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed
> * by Carnegie Mellon University.  The name of the
> * University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived
> * from this software without specific prior written permission.
> * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR
> * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED
> * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> */
>
>This is extremely embarrassing for me, if I can't get these notices
>changed I will have to stop maintaining and distributing pppd.
>
>Most of the files with this kind of notice are copyright Carnegie
>Mellon University.  Is there anyone from CMU on this list?  If so, can
>you tell me who to approach to get the notice changed?
>
>Paul. 

Karl Fox <[email-masked]>
Key fingerprint = 4159 B4AD 339D 4E2A 255F  9CC4 9DA9 CB4B B16D E2B1

---

From: Barney Wolff <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:47:32 -0400

Judging from the brouhaha about ipfilter, I think the problem
is that with copyright anything that is not expressly permitted
is forbidden.  So perhaps an official statement from CMU is needed.
IANAL.
Barney Wolff

---

From: Paul Mackerras <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jun 2001 14:00:43 +1000 (EST)

> however, any restriction on modification.  If you're referring to the 

There is no explicit restriction on modification, but there is no
explicit permission to modify either.  Copyright law doesn't generally
give you the right to modify somebody else's copyrighted work without
explicit permission.

This issue has blown up because of Darren Reed, the author of the
ipfilter package used in the free BSD systems, asserting that he has
*not* given permission for modification and that in fact modification
is forbidden without his explicit permission (which he is generally
not giving).  So now people are going through all the generally-
available free software looking for software with copyright notices
similar to the one Darren is using.  And pppd is one such.  Hence my
concern.

> I don't think you have anything to worry about.

I'm not expecting a letter from CMU's lawyers, but it is something
that I would like to get straightened out.  While I don't mind people
modifying pppd, and I don't believe CMU does either, I still would
very much prefer to keep on the right side of the letter of the law.

Paul.

---

From: Karl Fox <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 18:51:44 -0400

At 12:00 AM 6/3/01, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>not giving).

This makes sense if his copyrighted software, as distributed, contains a 
statement disallowing modification.  Otherwise, I doubt he has a leg to 
stand on.

People get really twitchy when dealing with legal issues.  I've never been 
able to identify with that; just using common sense and reading really, 
really carefully has always worked well for me.

But what does this have to do with PPPEXT?  Sorry about that.

Karl

Karl Fox <[email-masked]>

---

From: Paul Mackerras <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 09:32:43 +1000 (EST)

> But what does this have to do with PPPEXT?  Sorry about that.

I was hoping that one of the original developers from CMU might be on
this list.  I'll shut up now. :)

Paul.

---

From: Karl Fox <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 22:58:55 -0400

At 08:56 PM 6/3/01, Craig Fox wrote:
>Over the possible objections of Karl, I wish you would report on what
>you learn.

No, I don't object at all.  I just put that comment in to satisfy those 
folks who tend to object to noisy mailing lists.

Karl

Karl Fox <[email-masked]>