(long email) On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 10:05 AM Paul Dufresne via Freedos-devel <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't understand clearly what it is about. >[..]
The FDNET issue is described on the wiki, here: http://wiki.freedos.org/wiki/index.php/Releases/1.3/Packages#Networking FDNET uses a mix of licenses, also detailed in the wiki: >MTCP is GNU GPL. NE2000 is a mix of GNU GPL v1 and public >domain. PCNTPK claims "confidential proprietary information of AMD" >but also has GNU GPL v1 and public domain code - really not sure about >the license here. This is confusing. The dates suggest it was >originally GNU GPL or public domain, then AMD stamped their own >"confidential proprietary information of AMD" license on top of >it. **I am not a lawyer, but it seems clear AMD incorrectly stamped >these files with their license. The GNU GPL and public domain trumps >the later message. I think this package is ok to include, but not >sure. **Has other license issues (mix of GNU GPL2 and GNU GPL3, which >are not compatible. The FDNET package will require further review. It >may be updated to resolve any conflicting license issue. So out of an abundance of caution on the licenses used here, I asked Jerome to omit FDNET from RC4. But let's use this thread to discuss the license issues. And if the consensus is FDNET is okay, then we can include it in the next release (RC5 or 1.3 "Final" .. whatever the next release is) Looking at the files in FDNET.ZIP under SOURCE\FDNET, I see these files and directories: BERNDPCI.ASM ; This is public domain software by Eric Auer 2007 MTCP\ - this is Michael Brutman's mTCP *The COPYING.TXT file is the GNU GPL v3 *All of the source files indicate GNU GPL v3, so that's good NE2000\ - mostly by Russ Nelson from Crynwr *The source code is a mix of GNU GPL v1 (for larger source files) and public domain (for small source files) PCNTPK\ - claims by both AMD and Russ Nelson *This is where I have a problem. Many of the source files in this directory have this disclaimer at the top: ;Copyright (c) 1993 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. All Rights Reserved. ;This software is unpblished and contains the trade secrets and ;confidential proprietary information of AMD. Unless otherwise provided ;in the Software Agreement associated herewith, it is licensed in confidence ;"AS IS" and is not to be reproduced in whole or part by any means except ;for backup. Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject ;to the restrictions in paragraph (b) (3) (B) of the Rights in Technical ;Data and Computer Software clause in DFAR 52.227-7013 (a) (Oct 1988). ;Software owned by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 901 Thompson Place, ;Sunnyvale, CA 94088. This clearly says the source code is "all rights reserved" and "unpublished and contains the trade secrets and confidential proprietary information of AMD." This notice also states: "..is not to be reproduced in whole or part by any means except for backup." It seems very clear that we cannot distribute this source code. We're opening ourselves to problems if we do. Yes, I know it's old (1993) but that legal claim is a concern for me. But I'm confused that immediately following AMD's statement, we have this statement from Russ: ; Copyright, 1990, Russell Nelson, Crynwr Software ; ; ; This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify ; it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by ; the Free Software Foundation, version 1. ; ; This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, ; but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of ; MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the ; GNU General Public License for more details. ; ; You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License ; along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software ; Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. ..or a "public domain" statement like this: ; Copyright 1988-1992 Russell Nelson ; ;put into the public domain by Russell Nelson, [email protected] (You can't claim "Copyright" on something *and* "put into the public domain" .. but that's the least problem here.) The licenses here are very confusing. If the source code was meant to be GNU GPL at some earlier point (1990, or 1988-1992 .. depending on the file) then AMD should not be allowed to "stamp" it with an AMD "do not distribute" notice. Also note that PNINIT.ASM only contains AMD's notice, but not Russ's "GPL" or "public domain" notice. So at least that file suggests it's AMD private. And PRINTEA.ASM and VERIFYPI.ASM both have AMD's notice and a copyright statement by Russ - but no indication of GNU GPL or public domain. This is what's in those files: ;----------------------------------------------------------------------- ;Copyright (c) 1993 ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. All Rights Reserved. ;This software is unpblished and contains the trade secrets and ;confidential proprietary information of AMD. Unless otherwise provided ;in the Software Agreement associated herewith, it is licensed in confidence ;"AS IS" and is not to be reproduced in whole or part by any means except ;for backup. Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject ;to the restrictions in paragraph (b) (3) (B) of the Rights in Technical ;Data and Computer Software clause in DFAR 52.227-7013 (a) (Oct 1988). ;Software owned by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 901 Thompson Place, ;Sunnyvale, CA 94088. ;----------------------------------------------------------------------- ; Copyright, 1988-1992, Russell Nelson, Crynwr Software ;----------------------------------------------------------------------- I *suppose* that the timeline of events is Russ released the files under the GNU GPL (1990) or into the public domain (1988-1992) .. except for PRINTEA.ASM and VERIFYPI.ASM, which were not. And then in 1993, AMD may have somehow acquired a copy of these source files and accidentally put a boilerplate "unpublished and trade secret" message on it. I am not a lawyer, but it's basic "GPL" that you cannot legitimately claim "unpublished and trade secret" on something that was previously released under the GNU GPL. However, in an odd twist, I understand you can do that with something placed into the public domain. When you put something into the public domain, you give up all rights on it. But as I understand it, a lawyer would put the onus on us to determine if Russ's "GPL" or "public domain" claim came first (as indicated in the sources) or if AMD's claim came first (for example, if Russ "back-dated" the GPL and didn't remove AMD's claim). In the worst case, I'm very concerned about PCNTPK in the FDNET package, and the possibility that including it in FreeDOS might cause problems later. In the best case, the licensing around PCNTPK is very unclear and confusing. **I don't do networking under FreeDOS, so I have never used FDNET, and I haven't looked into it. I don't know what FDNET needs to do its job. Maybe it's possible to remove PCNTPK from FDNET - in which case, the license concerns go away. The licenses used in MCTP, NE2000, and BERNDPCI.ASM look okay otherwise. Jim _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
