add openbsd policy HTML page - webdump_tests - Testfiles for webdump
(HTM) git clone git://git.codemadness.org/webdump_tests
(DIR) Log
(DIR) Files
(DIR) Refs
(DIR) README
---
(DIR) commit 05005d3d586d7414b5a54119b5b74b90bbedd5ea
(DIR) parent 8e14ab0ee72ee2ed91c73d7a47b548303de9366f
(HTM) Author: Hiltjo Posthuma <hiltjo@codemadness.org>
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2023 12:04:29 +0200
add openbsd policy HTML page
some things to do:
- <pre> white-space
- nested optional <p> tags need more work
Diffstat:
A realworld/openbsd_policy.html | 405 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 405 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
---
(DIR) diff --git a/realworld/openbsd_policy.html b/realworld/openbsd_policy.html
@@ -0,0 +1,405 @@
+<!doctype html>
+<html lang=en>
+<meta charset=utf-8>
+
+<title>OpenBSD: Copyright Policy</title>
+<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
+<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="openbsd.css">
+<link rel="canonical" href="https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html">
+
+<style>
+h3 {
+ color: var(--red);
+}
+</style>
+
+<h2 id=OpenBSD>
+<a href="index.html">
+<i>Open</i><b>BSD</b></a>
+Copyright Policy
+</h2>
+
+<hr>
+
+<h3>Goal</h3>
+
+<p>
+Copyright law is complex, OpenBSD policy is simple — OpenBSD strives to
+provide code that can be freely used, copied, modified, and distributed
+by anyone and for any purpose. This maintains the spirit of the original
+Berkeley Software Distribution. The preferred wording of a license to be
+applied to new code can be found in the
+<a href="https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=HEAD">license template</a>.
+
+<p>
+OpenBSD can exist as it does today because of the example set by the
+Computer Systems Research Group at Berkeley and the battles which they
+and others fought to create a Unix source distribution un-encumbered
+by proprietary code and commercial licensing.
+
+<p>
+The ability of a <strong>freely redistributable</strong> "Berkeley" Unix
+to move forward on a competitive basis with other operating systems depends
+on the willingness of the various development groups to exchange code amongst
+themselves and with other projects.
+Understanding the legal issues surrounding copyright is fundamental to
+the ability to exchange and re-distribute code, while honoring the spirit of
+the copyright and concept of attribution is fundamental to promoting the
+cooperation of the people involved.
+
+<h3>The Berkeley Copyright</h3>
+
+<p>
+The original Berkeley copyright poses no restrictions on private or commercial
+use of the software and imposes only simple and uniform requirements
+for maintaining copyright notices in redistributed versions and
+crediting the originator of the material <strong>only</strong> in
+advertising.
+<p>
+For instance:
+<p>
+<pre>
+ * Copyright (c) 1982, 1986, 1990, 1991, 1993
+ * The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
+ *
+ * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
+ * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
+ * are met:
+ * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
+ * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
+ * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
+ * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
+ * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
+ * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
+ * must display the following acknowledgement:
+ * This product includes software developed by the University of
+ * California, Berkeley and its contributors.
+ * 4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
+ * may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
+ * without specific prior written permission.
+ *
+ * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND
+ * ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
+ * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
+ * ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE REGENTS OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE
+ * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL
+ * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS
+ * OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
+ * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT
+ * LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY
+ * OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
+ * SUCH DAMAGE.
+ *
+</pre>
+<p>
+Berkeley rescinded the 3rd term (the advertising term) on 22 July 1999.
+Verbatim copies of the Berkeley license in the OpenBSD tree have that
+term removed. In addition, many 3rd-party BSD-style licenses consist
+solely of the first two terms.
+<p>
+Because the OpenBSD copyright imposes no conditions beyond those
+imposed by the Berkeley copyright, OpenBSD can hope to share the same
+wide distribution and applicability as the Berkeley distributions.
+It follows however, that OpenBSD cannot include material which
+includes copyrights which are more restrictive than the Berkeley
+copyright, or must relegate this material to a secondary status,
+i.e. OpenBSD as a whole is freely redistributable, but some optional
+components may not be.
+
+<h3>Copyright Law</h3>
+
+<p>
+While the overall subject of copyright law is far beyond the scope of
+this document, some basics are in order. Under the current copyright law,
+copyrights are implicit in the creation of a new work and reside with
+the creator. In general the copyright applies
+only to the new work, not the material the work was derived from, nor
+those portions of the derivative material included in the new work.
+
+<p>
+Copyright law admits to three general categories of works:
+<dl>
+<dt>Original Work
+<dd>A new work that is not derived from an existing work.
+<dt>Derivative Work
+<dd>Work that is derived from, includes or amends existing works.
+<dt>Compilation
+<dd>A work that is a compilation of existing new and derivative works.
+</dl>
+
+<p>
+The fundamental concept is that there is primacy of the copyright, that
+is a copyright of a derivative work does not affect the rights held by
+the owner of the copyright of the original work, rather only the part
+added. Likewise the copyright of a compilation does not affect the rights
+of the owner of the included works, only the compilation as an entity.
+
+<p>
+It is vitally important to understand that copyrights are broad protections
+as defined by national and international copyright law. The "copyright
+notices" usually included in source files are not copyrights, but rather
+notices that a party asserts that they hold copyright to the material or
+to part of the material. Typically these notices are associated with
+license terms which grant permissions subject to copyright law and with
+disclaimers that state the position of the copyright holder/distributor
+with respect to liability surrounding use of the material.
+
+<p>
+By international law, specifically the Berne Convention for the
+Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, part of the author's
+copyright, the so-called moral rights, are inalienable. This
+includes the author's right "to claim authorship of the work and
+to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of,
+or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which
+would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation". In some countries,
+the law reserves additional inalienable moral rights to the author.
+On the other hand, the author is free to transfer other parts
+of his copyright, the so-called economic rights, in particular the
+rights to use, copy, modify, distribute, and license the work.
+
+<h3>Permissions — the flip side</h3>
+
+<p>
+Because copyrights arise from the creation of a work, rather than through
+a registration process, there needs to be a practical way to extend
+permission to use a work beyond what might be allowed by "fair use"
+provisions of the copyright laws.
+
+<p>
+This permission typically takes the form of a "release" or "license"
+included in the work, which grants the additional uses beyond those
+granted by copyright law, usually subject to a variety of conditions.
+At one extreme sits "public domain" where the originator asserts that
+he imposes no restrictions on use of the material, at the other
+restrictive clauses that actually grant no additional rights or impose
+restrictive, discriminatory or impractical conditions on use of the work.
+
+<p>
+Note that a license is not to be confused with a copyright transfer.
+While a transfer would give the new copyright holder <em>exclusive</em>
+rights to use the code and take these rights away from the author,
+a license typically grants <em>additional</em> people non-exclusive
+rights to use the code, while the authors retain all their rights.
+
+<p>
+The above observations regarding moral rights imply that putting
+code under an ISC or two-clause BSD license essentially makes the
+code as free as it can possibly get. Modifying the wording of these
+licenses can only result in one of the three following effects:
+
+<ul>
+<li>making the code less free by adding additional restrictions
+regarding its use, copying, modification or distribution;
+<li>or effectively not changing anything by merely changing the wording,
+but not changing anything substantial regarding the legal content;
+<li>or making the license illegal by attempting to deprive the
+authors of rights they cannot legally give away.
+</ul>
+
+<p>
+Again, an important point to note is that the release and conditions can
+only apply to the portion of the work that was originated by the copyright
+holder—the holder of a copyright on a derivative work can neither
+grant additional permissions for use of the original work, nor impose more
+restrictive conditions for use of that work.
+
+<p>
+Because copyright arises from the creation of a work and not the text
+or a registration process, removing or altering a copyright notice or
+associated release terms has no bearing on the existence of the copyright,
+rather all that is accomplished is to cast doubt upon whatever rights the
+person making the modifications had to use the material in the first place.
+Likewise, adding terms and conditions in conflict with the original terms
+and conditions does not supersede them, rather it casts doubts on the rights
+of the person making the amendments to use the material and creates confusion
+as to whether anyone can use the amended version or derivatives thereof.
+
+<p>
+Finally, releases are generally binding on the material that they
+are distributed with. This means that if the originator of a work distributes
+that work with a release granting certain permissions, those permissions
+apply as stated, without discrimination, to all persons legitimately
+possessing a copy of the work. That means that having granted a permission,
+the copyright holder can not retroactively say that an individual or class
+of individuals are no longer granted those permissions. Likewise should
+the copyright holder decide to "go commercial" he can not revoke permissions
+already granted for the use of the work as distributed, though he may impose
+more restrictive permissions in his future distributions of that work.
+
+<h3>Specific Cases</h3>
+
+<p>
+This section attempts to summarize the position of OpenBSD relative to
+some commonly encountered copyrights.
+
+<dl>
+<dt>Berkeley<dd><p>
+The Berkeley copyright is the model for the OpenBSD copyright. It retains
+the rights of the copyright holder, while imposing minimal conditions on
+the use of the copyrighted material. Material with Berkeley copyrights,
+or copyrights closely adhering to the Berkeley model can generally be
+included in OpenBSD.
+<p>
+
+<dt>AT&T<dd><p>
+As part of its settlement with AT&T, Berkeley included an
+AT&T copyright notice on some of the files in 4.4BSD lite and lite2.
+The terms of this license are identical to the standard Berkeley license.
+<p>
+Additionally, OpenBSD includes some other AT&T code with non-restrictive
+copyrights, such as the reference implementation of
+<a href="https://github.com/onetrueawk/awk">awk</a>.
+<p>
+
+<dt>Caldera<dd><p>
+The original Unix code (AT&T versions 1 through 7 UNIX, including 32V)
+was freed by Caldera, Inc. on 23 January 2002 and is now available under a
+<a href="http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf">4-term BSD-style license</a>.
+As a result, it would theoretically be possible to incorporate original
+Unix code into OpenBSD. However, that code is now so old that it does not
+satisfy today's interface and quality standards.
+<p>
+
+<dt>DEC, Sun, other manufacturers/software houses.<dd><p>
+In general OpenBSD does not include material copyrighted by manufacturers
+or software houses. Material may be included where the copyright owner has
+granted general permission for reuse without conditions, with terms similar
+to the Berkeley copyright, or where the material is the product of an
+employee and the employer's copyright notice effectively releases any
+rights they might have to the work.
+<p>
+
+<dt>Carnegie-Mellon (CMU, Mach)<dd><p>
+The Carnegie-Mellon copyright is similar to the Berkeley copyright, except
+that it requests that derivative works be made available to Carnegie-Mellon.
+Because this is only a request and not a condition, such material can still
+be included in OpenBSD. It should be noted that existing versions of Mach
+are still subject to AT&T copyrights, which prevents the general
+distribution of Mach sources.
+<p>
+
+<dt>Apache<dd><p>
+The original Apache license was similar to the Berkeley license,
+but source code published under version 2 of the Apache license is
+subject to additional restrictions and cannot be included into OpenBSD.
+In particular, if you use code under the Apache 2 license, some of
+your rights will terminate if you claim in court that the code
+violates a patent.
+<p>
+
+A license can only be considered fully permissive if it allows use
+by anyone for all the future without giving up any of their rights.
+If there are conditions that might terminate any rights in the
+future, or if you have to give up a right that you would otherwise
+have, even if exercising that right could reasonably be regarded
+as morally objectionable, the code is not free.
+<p>
+
+In addition, the clause about the patent license is problematic because
+a patent license cannot be granted under Copyright law, but only under
+contract law, which drags the whole license into the domain of contract
+law. But while Copyright law is somewhat standardized by international
+agreements, contract law differs wildly among jurisdictions. So what
+the license means in different jurisdictions may vary and is hard to
+predict.
+<p>
+
+<dt>ISC<dd><p>
+The ISC copyright is functionally equivalent to a two-term BSD
+copyright with language removed that is made unnecessary by the
+Berne convention. This is the preferred license for new code
+incorporated into OpenBSD. A sample license is available in the file
+<a href="https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/src/share/misc/license.template?rev=HEAD">/usr/share/misc/license.template</a>.
+<p>
+
+<dt>GNU General Public License, GPL, LGPL, copyleft, etc.<dd><p>
+The GNU Public License and licenses modeled on it impose the restriction
+that source code must be distributed or made available for all works that
+are derivatives of the GNU copyrighted code.
+
+<p>
+While this may superficially look like a noble strategy, it is a
+condition that is typically unacceptable for commercial use of software.
+So in practice, it usually ends up hindering free sharing and reuse
+of code and ideas rather than encouraging it.
+As a consequence, no additional software bound by the GPL terms
+will be considered for inclusion into the OpenBSD base system.
+
+<p>
+For historical reasons, the OpenBSD base system still includes the
+following GPL-licensed components: the GNU compiler collection (GCC)
+with supporting binutils and libraries, GNU CVS, GNU texinfo,
+the mkhybrid file system creation tool, and the
+readline library. Replacement by equivalent, more freely licensed
+tools is a long-term desideratum.
+<p>
+
+<dt>NetBSD<dd><p>
+Much of OpenBSD is originally based on and evolved from NetBSD, since some
+of the OpenBSD developers were involved in the NetBSD project. The general
+NetBSD license terms are compatible with the Berkeley license and permit
+such use. Material subject <strong>only</strong> to the general NetBSD
+license can generally be included in OpenBSD.
+<p>
+
+In the past, NetBSD has included material copyrighted by individuals
+who have imposed license conditions beyond that of the general
+NetBSD license, but granted the NetBSD Foundation license to
+distribute the material. Such material can not be included in
+OpenBSD as long as the conditions imposed are at odds with the
+OpenBSD license terms or releases from those terms are offered on
+a discriminatory basis.
+<p>
+
+<dt>FreeBSD<dd><p>
+Most of FreeBSD is also based on Berkeley licensed material or includes
+copyright notices based on the Berkeley model. Such material can be
+included in OpenBSD, while those parts that are subject to GPL or
+various individual copyright terms that are at odds with the OpenBSD license
+can not be included in OpenBSD.
+<p>
+
+<dt>Linux<dd><p>
+Most of Linux is subject to GPL style licensing terms and therefore
+can not be included in OpenBSD. Individual components may be eligible,
+subject to the terms of the originator's copyright notices. Note that
+Linux "distributions" may also be subject to additional copyright claims
+of the distributing organization, either as a compilation or on material
+included that is not part of the Linux core.
+<p>
+
+<dt>X.Org<dd><p>
+The X.Org Foundation maintains and distributes the X Window System
+under a modified MIT license, which is quite similar to the BSD
+license and additionally allows sublicensing. Under the name of
+Xenocara, the OpenBSD base system includes an improved and actively
+maintained version of the X.Org code.
+<p>
+
+<dt>Shareware, Charityware, Freeware, etc.<dd><p>
+Most "shareware" copyright notices impose conditions for redistribution,
+use or visibility that are at conflict with the OpenBSD project goals.
+Review on a case-by-case basis is required as to whether the wording
+of the conditions is acceptable in terms of conditions being requested vs.
+demanded and whether the spirit of the conditions is compatible with
+goals of the OpenBSD project.
+<p>
+
+<dt>Public Domain<dd><p>
+While material that is truly entered into the "public domain" can be
+included in OpenBSD, review is required on a case by case basis.
+Frequently the "public domain" assertion is made by someone who does
+not really hold all rights under copyright law to grant that status or
+there are a variety of conditions imposed on use. For a work to be
+truly in the "public domain" all rights are abandoned and the material
+is offered without restrictions.
+<p>
+
+In some jurisdictions, it is doubtful whether voluntarily placing
+one's own work into the public domain is legally possible.
+For that reason, to make any substantial body of code free,
+it is preferable to state the copyright and put it under an ISC
+or BSD license instead of attempting to release it into the public
+domain.
+
+</dl>