License Clarification
=====================

The licenses attached to this software ([LICENSES](LICENSES)) are supposed
to paint a simple concept: that this software was built for the open source
community and they result in a license compatible with [LICENSE](LICENSE).

Unfortunately, the real world steps in and troubles can arise.  This note
has been moved over from the [INSTALL](INSTALL) file:

    The Debian folks have conserver distributed with the package
    names of conserver-client and conserver-server.  They are in
    the distribution "sid" and the "non-free" part (because the
    Ohio State license doesn't explicitly allow for modification to
    the code, even though it's totally implied and the intention of
    the author - I've even got proof in email!  Oh well, can't
    blame the Debian folks for being cautious - they've been burned
    before, apparently).

Here's a copy of the message I exchanged with Thomas A. Fine (original
author at OSU) in 2001 that is referenced above:

    Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 19:47:18 -0400 (EDT)
    To: bryan@conserver.com
    From: "Thomas A. Fine" <fine@head-cfa.harvard.edu>
    Subject: Re: A conserver license question...
    
    > Hi Tom,
    > 
    > I had a little "problem" crop up that I was hoping you could help me
    > with.  A guy out in net-land is trying to put a debian package together
    > of the code I've been releasing (based on your original work) and they
    > don't like part of the Ohio State license.  I've attached the message
    > below.
    > 
    > I'm not sure what can be done.  One thought was a message from you that
    > I could put with the code stating that modifications are ok would
    > work.  Or maybe just modifying the original license statement.  Heck, I
    > don't even know if either are 100% legal.  Maybe I need to talk to
    > someone at Ohio State.
    > 
    > Well, if you have any ideas or suggestions, please let me know.  Don't
    > know if I ever got a chance to thank you for the great stuff you
    > started!  Thank you!  ;-)
    
    Well, if I knew then what I know now, I would have copyrighted it
    under my own name, and not under OSU, and then I could change it.
    Since I don't work there anymore, strictly speaking, I can't change
    it.
    
    However, IMHO, this license allows modifications, without explicitly
    stating it.  I can state without a doubt that this was my intention
    at the time (and hence, OSU's intention, since I put in the copyright
    while working for OSU).
    
    But also, since it allows use of the source, and since the statement
    required for inclusion says "includes software ..." it seems pretty
    clear that modification was both allowed and expected.  You can't
    really use sources if you aren't changing them, and you certainly
    can't include this software in some other product without making
    modifications.
    
    As I recall, I more or less used the copyright that Berkeley was using
    back then for there BSD-related software, so I'm surprised there's a
    problem with it.
    
    I have to point out that version 1.2, available at
    http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/Tech/cs1.2/
    is distributed entirely without copyright notices.  Interesting, no?
    So I guess I could add a copyright notice to that.  But would I then
    be violating the OSU copyright that I wrote for 1.1?  Since it is
    a different version, I could probably write a new copyright notice 
    and license and be free and clear.
    
    There's also Purdue's versions of the software.  It's mentioned on my
    console server web page at
    http://hea-www.harvard.edu/~fine/Tech/console-server.html
    
    So, pass this on to the people you're working with and let me know how
    you want to proceed.
    
    	 tom

In addition, a post to the Conserver Users mailing list in May 2020 contained:

    From: Paul Wise via users <users@conserver.com>
    To: users@conserver.com
    Subject: Re: license change?
    Date: Mon, 25 May 2020 12:42:28 +0800
    
    On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 10:20 +0200, Bryan Stansell via users wrote:
    > So, it's more the lack of explicitly stating the code can be
    > modified.
    
    Since then I talked to one of RedHat's lawyers and they mentioned that
    they have dealt with this problem too and also concluded that these
    licenses were intended to cover modification. The current wording of
    the initial part of the BSD license reflects an attempt to correct an
    earlier mistake (i.e. someone pointed out the error and Berkeley added
    "with or without modification"). Also the anti-endorsement clause
    implies a right to modify.

Hopefully corporations (or, I suppose, their lawyers) will be happy with the
explanation above and become comfortable with the stated license.
