webdump_tests

Testfiles for webdump
git clone git://git.codemadness.org/webdump_tests
Log | Files | Refs | README

commit 05005d3d586d7414b5a54119b5b74b90bbedd5ea
parent 8e14ab0ee72ee2ed91c73d7a47b548303de9366f
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:
Arealworld/openbsd_policy.html | 405+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 405 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

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 &mdash; 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 &mdash; 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&mdash;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&amp;T<dd><p> +As part of its settlement with AT&amp;T, Berkeley included an +AT&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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&amp;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>