Technology and Trends
 USENET Archives
  
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.announce
Subject: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Date: 18 Jan 1994 21:42:14 +0200
Approved: linux-announce@tc.cornell.edu (Lars Wirzenius)
Message-ID: <2hhe2m$2am@klaava.Helsinki.FI>

I just read Richard Stallman's article regarding the GPL and CD-ROM
distributions and felt now was the time for a note of my own regarding
the inclusion of the Shadow Password Suite code into Linux.

Numerous FAQ postings state that Linux is distributed under the terms
of the GNU General Public License.  As most Linux distributions which
I am aware of contain significant quantities of code for which I am
the copyright owner, this is a false statement.  The copyright which
covers the Shadow Password Suite permits "free" distribution in a
sense which is opposite to that of the GPL and which was written with
the express purpose of prohibiting commercial distributions of the
type I am now finding to be quite commonplace.

The copyright on Shadow 3.2.3 (which I understand is one of the most
common levels of Shadow code) states

	Copyright 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, John F. Haugh II
	All rights reserved.

	Permission is granted to copy and create derivative works for any
	non-commercial purpose, provided this copyright notice is preserved
	in all copies of source code, or included in human readable form
	and conspicuously displayed on all copies of object code or
	distribution media.

Note that only non-commercial distribution is permitted.  Resellers of
Linux who are charging above and beyond the actual cost of transmission
are violating the copyright.  This is as stated in the README file for
3.2.3.

The GPL permits "free" distribution in the sense that anyone can distribute
the code, and if they distribute it to a third party, that person is also
assured of the right to distribute the code.  The copyright on Shadow
permits "free" distribution in the sense that you cannot charge for the
code.  You can give it away, you can put it on an FTP server and let people
connect anonymously, or you could copy it onto CD-ROMs and charge your
customers what the CD pressing company charges you.  What you cannot do
is (this is not an exhaustive list) put it onto a CD-ROM and charge more
than actual cost of the CD-ROM, put it on an FTP server and charge for
copying the source code, or use it as part of a value-added package in a
hardware offering.

It is true that at one time Shadow was going to be placed under the GPL but
philosophical differences prevented this from occuring.

The purpose of the copyright was to prevent the type of problems which
recently occured with changes made to the shadow.c functions.  If you aren't
allowed to sell Shadow as a product, you are much more likely to send bug
reports to me, and much less likely to get something hacked on by someone
who is not completely familiar with the code.  The largest philosophical
difference I had with the FSF people was in control over the design and
functional integrity of the shadow code.  Several well-intentioned but
mis-guided changes to Shadow have proven this was a sound decision.

I have been corresponding with a number of distributors for the purpose
of bringing them into compliance with the terms and conditions of Shadow.
I hope to bring all of the commercial distributors of Shadow into
compliance in an attempt to prevent the problems which have occured in the
past and to dispell the misinformation that surrounds those portions of
Linux which I authored.  In the meantime, I'd like it if the FAQ's would
be amended to remove any claims that Linux as a whole is covered by the
GPL.  From all indications, none of the most popular distributions are.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151     [ DoF #17 ] [ PADI ]     @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
The P.C. Movement killed the 1st Amendment, the Brady Bill the 2nd, the WOsD
got the 4th and 5th, political activism the 9th and 10th.  Not much left, eh?

--
Mail submissions for comp.os.linux.announce to: linux-announce@tc.cornell.edu
PLEASE remember Keywords: and a short description of the software.

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan19.202501.19435@swan.pyr>
Keywords: shadow password suite, copyrights
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <2hhe2m$2am@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 20:25:01 GMT
Lines: 37

In article <2hhe2m$...@klaava.Helsinki.FI> j...@rpp386.cactus.org 
(John F. Haugh II) writes:
>I just read Richard Stallman's article regarding the GPL and CD-ROM
>distributions and felt now was the time for a note of my own regarding
>the inclusion of the Shadow Password Suite code into Linux.
STOP RIGHT THERE: I don't see any shadow password code in Linux, only in
some distributions of software containing Linux. Thats a very very important
difference. Moan about the CD-ROM distributions or the sites not carrying
proper copyright messages if there are any.
>
>Numerous FAQ postings state that Linux is distributed under the terms
>of the GNU General Public License.  As most Linux distributions which

'Linux Distributions'. Difference

>I am aware of contain significant quantities of code for which I am
>the copyright owner, this is a false statement.  The copyright which
No it's not. There isn't a line of your code in Linux, only in some install
sets people have gathered together - ITS NOT THE SAME.

>Note that only non-commercial distribution is permitted.  Resellers of
>Linux who are charging above and beyond the actual cost of transmission
>are violating the copyright.  This is as stated in the README file for
>3.2.3.
This can't be argued with, and hopefully they will stop immediately. BUT
IT ISN'T LINUX - ITS A DISTRIBUTION CONTAINING LINUX!!!!
>
>Linux which I authored.  In the meantime, I'd like it if the FAQ's would
>be amended to remove any claims that Linux as a whole is covered by the
>GPL.  From all indications, none of the most popular distributions are.

And I'd like any that have been changed put back. Any that say xx distribution
of Linux is all GPL'd material yes - Linux is not a Linux distribution any
more than the sunsite ftp archive is Linux because it has a Linux kernel
in the filestore

Alan

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386>
Reply-To: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
References: <2hhe2m$2am@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <1994Jan19.202501.19435@swan.pyr>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 03:55:06 GMT
Lines: 17

In article <1994Jan19.202501.19...@swan.pyr> iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) writes:
>And I'd like any that have been changed put back. Any that say xx distribution
>of Linux is all GPL'd material yes - Linux is not a Linux distribution any
>more than the sunsite ftp archive is Linux because it has a Linux kernel
>in the filestore

UNIX is more than /unix.  When you can get "Linux" to run with just a
kernel and actually do something useful, come back and tell me about it.

The fact remains -- several people took code which did not belong to
them and sold it against the wishes of the owner.  I don't care what
you call "Linux".  I call what was done "theft".
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
The P.C. Movement killed the 1st Amendment, the Brady Bill the 2nd, the WOsD
got the 4th and 5th, political activism the 9th and 10th.  Not much left, eh?

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan21.180607.17012@swan.pyr>
Organization: Swansea University College
References: <2hhe2m$2am@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <1994Jan19.202501.19435@swan.pyr> 
<1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 18:06:07 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) 
writes:
>In article <1994Jan19.202501.19...@swan.pyr> iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) writes:
>>And I'd like any that have been changed put back. Any that say xx distribution
>>of Linux is all GPL'd material yes - Linux is not a Linux distribution any
>>more than the sunsite ftp archive is Linux because it has a Linux kernel
>>in the filestore
>
>UNIX is more than /unix.  When you can get "Linux" to run with just a
>kernel and actually do something useful, come back and tell me about it.
UNIX means much more than /unix. Linux does not. Thus your statement is
misleading and you are making false claims about the linux copyright. That
isn't good
>
>The fact remains -- several people took code which did not belong to
>them and sold it against the wishes of the owner.  I don't care what
>you call "Linux".  I call what was done "theft".
And unfortunately its neither the first time nor will it be the last time this
has happened. But it is a distribution of linux problem not a linux issue -
and nobody has every claimed the distributions are GPL - much is BSD, or
assorted author copyrights.

Alan

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan22.174258.20565@rpp386>
Reply-To: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
References: <1994Jan19.202501.19435@swan.pyr> <1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386> 
<1994Jan21.180607.17012@swan.pyr>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 17:42:58 GMT
Lines: 16

In article <1994Jan21.180607.17...@swan.pyr> iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) writes:
>And unfortunately its neither the first time nor will it be the last time this
>has happened. But it is a distribution of linux problem not a linux issue -
>and nobody has every claimed the distributions are GPL - much is BSD, or
>assorted author copyrights.

Uh, I've read the BSD copyright.  If you guys have trouble with my
copyright, you guys should be throwing fits over the BSD copyright.

This boils down to exactly one thing -- several distributors have
threatened to "kill" Shadow if I don't GPL the code.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
The P.C. Movement killed the 1st Amendment, the Brady Bill the 2nd, the WOsD
got the 4th and 5th, political activism the 9th and 10th.  Not much left, eh?

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!psinntp!
newstand.syr.edu!iguana.syr.EDU!lruppert
From: lrupp...@iguana.syr.EDU (Ludwig Van.)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan22.202454.19022@newstand.syr.edu>
Sender: netn...@newstand.syr.edu (Network News Administrator)
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
References: <2hhe2m$2am@klaava.Helsinki.FI> <1994Jan19.202501.19435@swan.pyr> 
<1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386>
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 1994 20:24:54 GMT
Lines: 42

In article <1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) 
writes:
>In article <1994Jan19.202501.19...@swan.pyr> iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) writes:
>>And I'd like any that have been changed put back. Any that say xx distribution
>>of Linux is all GPL'd material yes - Linux is not a Linux distribution any
>>more than the sunsite ftp archive is Linux because it has a Linux kernel
>>in the filestore
>
>UNIX is more than /unix.  When you can get "Linux" to run with just a
>kernel and actually do something useful, come back and tell me about it.

OK, if you get pedantic enough, yes.  It could then be argued that
many commercial versions of UNIX suffer under the same problems, since
they borrow code from the Berkeley and AT&T original versions of UNIX.

>The fact remains -- several people took code which did not belong to
>them and sold it against the wishes of the owner.  I don't care what
>you call "Linux".  I call what was done "theft".

Clarity on this one would be appreciated.  Theft is a pretty strong
term.  Exactly what was "stolen", and to whom was it sold?  I have a
very richly featured Linux distribution and not one single package was
sold to me. I grabbed the package in its entirety off of the net for
free, and the package contains programs that all have their sources
available for free on the net.  Last I checked, taking things that
were free and redistributing them for free was not considered
thievery, perhaps my dictionary is out of date.

-Lou Ruppert
UNIX Weenie and apparent net.felon by association

>-- 
>John F. Haugh II [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
>Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]  @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
>The P.C. Movement killed the 1st Amendment, the Brady Bill the 2nd, the WOsD
>got the 4th and 5th, political activism the 9th and 10th.  Not much left, eh?

Can't argue with you there... :(
-- 
"Until you stalk and overrun, you can't devour anyone."   -Hobbes
Lou Ruppert			lrupp...@mailbox.syr.edu
Note that the opinions expressed above are most likely not those of
Computing Services, for whom I am currently working. I value my job.

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan26.145025.7046@rpp386>
Reply-To: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
References: <1994Jan19.202501.19435@swan.pyr> <1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386> 
<1994Jan22.202454.19022@newstand.syr.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 1994 14:50:25 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <1994Jan22.202454.19...@newstand.syr.edu> lrupp...@iguana.syr.EDU 
(Ludwig Van.) writes:
>Clarity on this one would be appreciated.  Theft is a pretty strong
>term.  Exactly what was "stolen", and to whom was it sold?  I have a
>very richly featured Linux distribution and not one single package was
>sold to me. I grabbed the package in its entirety off of the net for
>free, and the package contains programs that all have their sources
>available for free on the net.  Last I checked, taking things that
>were free and redistributing them for free was not considered
>thievery, perhaps my dictionary is out of date.

To the best of my knowledge, Debian Linux is one such example.  They
took Shadow code, and in violation of the copyright, sold that code
to others.  Furthermore, they have been completely unwilling to reach
any terms as to licensing Shadow.

If you copied it for free from the net, you've done nothing wrong.  If
you were given a copy for free, the person giving you the copy did
nothing wrong.  But if someone sold you Shadow without my consent, they
are in violation of US copyright laws.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
The P.C. Movement killed the 1st Amendment, the Brady Bill the 2nd, the WOsD
got the 4th and 5th, political activism the 9th and 10th.  Not much left, eh?

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!lerc.nasa.gov!
purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!dirac!bohr.physics.purdue.edu!bcr
From: b...@bohr.physics.purdue.edu (Bill C. Riemers)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Pass
Message-ID: <14518@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>
Date: 26 Jan 94 15:43:06 GMT
References: <1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386> <1994Jan26.130623.4544@cee.hw.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@dirac.physics.purdue.edu
Organization: Purdue University Physics Department
Lines: 34

In article <1994Jan26.130623.4...@cee.hw.ac.uk> phyj...@phy.hw.ac.uk writes:
::The fact remains -- several people took code which did not belong to
::them and sold it against the wishes of the owner.  I don't care what
::you call "Linux".  I call what was done "theft".

:Strange definition of theft. Theft is the *illegal* taking of something.
:If someone puts restrictions on something, with a specific intention
:in mind, and then someone finds a way do what those restrictions
:are intended to prevent without breaking the very same restrictions,
:then they are not guilty of theft, they have found a loop hole; thats
:all.

I think you missed the point that at least in the U.S. copyright laws
are based in intent, not wording.  This means that even if I include
no copyright notice I still have a copyright and can place any restrictions
on things I write that I want.  Likewise, at any given time I can change
the copyright to anything that I've already copyrighted.  The only restriction
is that I can not sue for monetary compensation for anything that is done
before I make the new terms of the copyright clear...  So if you are selling
software the author doesn't want you to sell, you are violating his/her
copyright.  If you know the author doesn't want you to sell the software then
you can be sued for big bucks.  If you don't know that the author doesn't want
you to sell the software, then the law suite can only change your future
actions.

Unfortunately, few authors understand the above point, and even fewer can
afford a lawyer to enforce action when the distributor becomes non-cooperative.
One easy way to avoid this problem is to use the GNU copyright, so that you
can get the Free Software Foundation to take the action necessary to enforce
your copyright.  (Note: In doing so you may be giving up your rights to change
your copyright just as if you had sold your rights to someone else...)

                                Bill

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!
sdd.hp.com!portal!imurdock
From: imurd...@shell.portal.com (Ian A Murdock)
Subject: Get the facts straight! (Re: Distributions and Shadow...)
Message-ID: <CK9w2p.8CI@unix.portal.com>
Sender: n...@unix.portal.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 
(data)
References: <1994Jan19.202501.19435@swan.pyr> <1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386> 
<1994Jan22.202454.19022@newstand.syr.edu> <1994Jan26.145025.7046@rpp386>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 1994 05:18:22 GMT
Lines: 40

In article <1994Jan26.145025.7046@rpp386>,
John F. Haugh II <j...@rpp386.cactus.org> wrote:
>In article <1994Jan22.202454.19...@newstand.syr.edu> lrupp...@iguana.syr.EDU 
(Ludwig Van.) writes:
>>Clarity on this one would be appreciated.  Theft is a pretty strong
>>term.  Exactly what was "stolen", and to whom was it sold?  I have a
>>very richly featured Linux distribution and not one single package was
>>sold to me. I grabbed the package in its entirety off of the net for
>>free, and the package contains programs that all have their sources
>>available for free on the net.  Last I checked, taking things that
>>were free and redistributing them for free was not considered
>>thievery, perhaps my dictionary is out of date.
>
>To the best of my knowledge, Debian Linux is one such example.  They
>took Shadow code, and in violation of the copyright, sold that code
>to others.  Furthermore, they have been completely unwilling to reach
>any terms as to licensing Shadow.
>
>If you copied it for free from the net, you've done nothing wrong.  If
>you were given a copy for free, the person giving you the copy did
>nothing wrong.  But if someone sold you Shadow without my consent, they
>are in violation of US copyright laws.

Well, I believe that libel is also in violation of US law, Mr. Haugh.
I, nor anyone else to my knowledge, has made a dime from Debian Linux.
I am a strong advocate and supporter of free software.  Just ask
Richard Stallman, who after hearing of my goals for Debian Linux (which
are, incidentally, to provide a NON-commercial distribution that will
be able to effectively compete in the commercial market) asked if the
Free Software Foundation could distribute it on their CD-ROM.  You are
the one who is milking your "free" software for all that it is worth
(which, in my opinion, is not that much), not me.

For the record, when you asked me to pay your license fee I had already
removed all shadow code from Debian Linux because it was BROKEN. 

Think before you post next time, and get the facts straight first.

Ian
--
Ian Murdock <imurd...@shell.portal.com>

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!
nyx10!jmaynard
From: jmayn...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Pass
Message-ID: <1994Jan27.113558.14652@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
 	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
 	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: use...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386> <1994Jan26.130623.4544@cee.hw.ac.uk> 
<14518@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 94 11:35:58 GMT
Lines: 17

In article <14...@dirac.physics.purdue.edu>,
Bill C. Riemers <b...@bohr.physics.purdue.edu> wrote:
>One easy way to avoid this problem is to use the GNU copyright, so that you
>can get the Free Software Foundation to take the action necessary to enforce
>your copyright.

The FSF has refused, in the past, to defend any code but their own, even 
though it was under the GPL. Specific case: Xircom used the packet driver 
skeleton for their pocket Ethernet adapter driver, and refused to release 
source. The FSF wasn't interested; when I brought the matter to Richard 
Stallman's attention, he said that they could not take any action, since it 
wasn't their code.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"The difference between baseball and politics is that, in baseball, if you
               get caught stealing, you're out!" -- Ed Shanks

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!umdac!
fizban.solace.mh.se!lysator.liu.se!isy.liu.se!ifm.liu.se!not-for-mail
From: pe...@ifm.liu.se (Peter Eriksson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Date: 26 Jan 1994 16:40:52 +0100
Organization: Dept of Physics, University of Linkoping
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <2i62u4$rlr@celsius.ifm.liu.se>
References: <1994Jan19.202501.19435@swan.pyr> <1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386> 
<1994Jan21.180607.17012@swan.pyr> <1994Jan22.174258.20565@rpp386>
NNTP-Posting-Host: celsius.ifm.liu.se
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #1 (NOV)

jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:

>In article <1994Jan21.180607.17...@swan.pyr> iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) writes:
>>And unfortunately its neither the first time nor will it be the last time this
>>has happened. But it is a distribution of linux problem not a linux issue -
>>and nobody has every claimed the distributions are GPL - much is BSD, or
>>assorted author copyrights.

>Uh, I've read the BSD copyright.  If you guys have trouble with my
>copyright, you guys should be throwing fits over the BSD copyright.

>This boils down to exactly one thing -- several distributors have
>threatened to "kill" Shadow if I don't GPL the code.

The problem is that your copyright strictly forbids commercial use,
whereas the BSD one doesn't.


***** From libc-4.5.8 and 5.14alpha:

/usr/include/shadow.h:

/*
 * Copyright 1988, 1989, 1990, John F. Haugh II
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * Use, duplication, and disclosure prohibited without
 * the express written permission of the author.
 */



/usr/src/libc-linux/grp/gshadow.c:

/*
 * Copyright 1990, 1991, John F. Haugh II
 * All rights reserved.
 *
 * Permission is granted to copy and create derivative works for any
 * non-commercial purpose, provided this copyright notice is preserved
 * in all copies of source code, or included in human readable form
 * and conspicuously displayed on all copies of object code or
 * distribution media.
 */


/Peter

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!
news.funet.fi!nntp.hut.fi!nntp!Petri.Wessman
From: Petri.Wess...@hut.fi (Petri Wessman)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Date: 27 Jan 1994 15:21:32 GMT
Organization: La Gata Encantada
Lines: 20
Distribution: inet
Message-ID: <PETRI.WESSMAN.94Jan27172133@delta.hut.fi>
References: <1994Jan19.202501.19435@swan.pyr> <1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386>
	<1994Jan22.202454.19022@newstand.syr.edu>
	<1994Jan26.145025.7046@rpp386>
Reply-To: Petri.Wess...@hut.fi
NNTP-Posting-Host: delta.hut.fi
In-reply-to: jfh@rpp386's message of Wed, 26 Jan 1994 14:50:25 GMT

On Wed, 26 Jan 1994 14:50:25 GMT, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) said:

>To the best of my knowledge, Debian Linux is one such example.  They
>took Shadow code, and in violation of the copyright, sold that code
>to others.  Furthermore, they have been completely unwilling to reach
>any terms as to licensing Shadow.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Debian is in alpha
(well, beta now I guess) development and hasn't been sold to anybody.
The whole idea behind Debian is to build a user driven (_free_)
distribution, hopefully better than the others out there (and it looks
*good* so far -- gratuitous blurb :-).

_License_ shadow? Why would anyone want to do that anyway? The last
time I looked the code was pretty much broken, I hope the newest
Debian dist has dropped it completely.

Sheesh.

//Petri

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!
portal!imurdock
From: imurd...@shell.portal.com (Ian A Murdock)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <CKBsL2.3KH@unix.portal.com>
Sender: n...@unix.portal.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 
(data)
References: <1994Jan19.202501.19435@swan.pyr> 
<1994Jan22.202454.19022@newstand.syr.edu> <1994Jan26.145025.7046@rpp386> 
<PETRI.WESSMAN.94Jan27172133@delta.hut.fi>
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 05:58:10 GMT
Lines: 71

In article <PETRI.WESSMAN.94Jan27172...@delta.hut.fi>,
Petri Wessman <Petri.Wess...@hut.fi> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jan 1994 14:50:25 GMT, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) said:
>
>>To the best of my knowledge, Debian Linux is one such example.  They
>>took Shadow code, and in violation of the copyright, sold that code
>>to others.  Furthermore, they have been completely unwilling to reach
>>any terms as to licensing Shadow.
>
>_License_ shadow? Why would anyone want to do that anyway? The last
>time I looked the code was pretty much broken, I hope the newest
>Debian dist has dropped it completely.
>
>Sheesh.
>

It has.

When I first saw John Haugh's post accusing me (I've put together the
ALPHA and BETA versions of Debian Linux, for those of you who don't
know me) of being a thief and a dirty-rotten copyright infringer, I was
so rip-roaring mad that I changed the subject line of my followup to
something really obnoxious to make a point.  It occured to me that I
really shouldn't have done that, and just to make sure that everyone
following this thread is aware of the REALITY of the situation I'm
going to say a little something here with a little clearer head.

First of all, as many have pointed out, John's accusations are grossly
untrue.  I have made no financial gains from Debian Linux and neither
has anyone else that I know.  According to the Shadow copyright as
described by John, this exempts the distribution from having to obtain
a license in order to distribute it.  As it was, I had already removed
most of Shadow from the distribution by popular demand; people realized
that it simply wasn't working right.  When asked to pay the license fee
or else, I simply told John that I was still using parts of his package
but was in the process of removing it.  I assured him that IF I decided
to keep Shadow in the distribution and that IF I ever made any money
from it I would pay his license fee.  But the whole situation of
including licensed code in a distribution of free software left a bad
taste in my mouth, so as far as I was concerned it was the nail in the
coffin for Shadow support in Debian Linux.  The next day I removed the
remaining pieces of Shadow and washed my hands of the matter (or so I
thought).

I saw a post to c.o.l.a. a few weeks later in which John bad-mouthed
every Linux distributor who refused to pay his license fee (including
me... but aren't I exempted under the terms of his copyright?).
According to him we "really made him sick" because we were calling his
Shadow package commercial software.  Well, what is it?  Free software
that you have to pay for?  Fine, so he's mad at us because we refuse to
pay him because we don't have to ACCORDING TO HIS COPYRIGHT.

But with the libelous statements he made last night in this thread he
went too far.  Obviously without researching the matter at all or
making any attempt whatsoever to back up his accusations, he posted
that:

>>To the best of my knowledge, Debian Linux is one such example.  They
>>took Shadow code, and in violation of the copyright, sold that code
>>to others.  Furthermore, they have been completely unwilling to reach
>>any terms as to licensing Shadow.

"To the best of my knowledge" doesn't cut it.  Basically, John, you've
falsely accused me of a crime in public and in writing.  That's called
libel.

I feel that a public apology is in order, don't you?

Ian
--
Ian Murdock <imurd...@shell.portal.com>

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!zib-berlin.de!math.fu-berlin.de!odb!eurom!misch
From: mi...@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de (Michaela Merz)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Message-ID: <CKE90E.Kqw@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: FSAG ++49-69-6312083
X-Newsreader: MINEWS [FSAG] Version: 0.1
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 13:48:14 GMT
Lines: 26


On 27 Jan 1994 15:21:32 GMT, Petri.Wess...@hut.fi (Petri Wessman) wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 1994 14:50:25 GMT, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) said:
> 
> >To the best of my knowledge, Debian Linux is one such example.  They
> >took Shadow code, and in violation of the copyright, sold that code
> >to others.  Furthermore, they have been completely unwilling to reach
> >any terms as to licensing Shadow.

Sorry folks, I don't see the problem. What is the "shadow" we're talking
about (yes, I know what shadow is). Is it the libraries, the include files
or the compiled binaries that uses shadow security?

GREAT uses shadow security. After reading that libshadow isn't freeware,
we made our own little libshadow. It took about two hours for a little
hack that replaces the shadow password functions (the library does not
support group shadowing yet).

So - I can't see the problem. We uploaded the source allready to tsx-11.

mm.

----
FREE SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION                                  irc: misch @ #fsag
OF GERMANY                                   gopher: eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de
Voice: ++49-69-6312083                www: http://callisto.fsag.rhein-main.de 

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan29.161938.10691@rpp386>
Reply-To: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
References: <CKE90E.Kqw@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 16:19:38 GMT
Lines: 26

In article <CKE90E....@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de> mi...@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de 
(Michaela Merz) writes:
>Sorry folks, I don't see the problem. What is the "shadow" we're talking
>about (yes, I know what shadow is). Is it the libraries, the include files
>or the compiled binaries that uses shadow security?

It takes a lot more to support /etc/shadow that getspent() and <shadow.h>.
Unless shadowing is fully and seamlessly integrated into all of the
utilities that support users, groups, and so on, all you've managed to
do is write a few function calls.  If you want to settle for second rate,
that is of course your business.

>GREAT uses shadow security. After reading that libshadow isn't freeware,
>we made our own little libshadow. It took about two hours for a little
>hack that replaces the shadow password functions (the library does not
>support group shadowing yet).

=I= don't see what the problem is.  The Shadow Password Suite is about
as free as you can get.  Repeatedly stating that Shadow isn't "free"
won't make it stop being "free".  No one has ever been prevented from
distributing Shadow.  No one has ever paid a single cent for Shadow. 
Those are the facts, what you post is hysteria.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
The P.C. Movement killed the 1st Amendment, the Brady Bill the 2nd, the WOsD
got the 4th and 5th, political activism the 9th and 10th.  Not much left, eh?

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
usenet.ins.cwru.edu!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!tabaer
From: tab...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Highlander)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Date: 29 Jan 1994 18:23:49 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <2ie9jl$c66@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
References: <CKE90E.Kqw@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de> <1994Jan29.161938.10691@rpp386>
NNTP-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

In article <1994Jan29.161938.10691@rpp386>,
John F. Haugh II <j...@rpp386.cactus.org> wrote:
>In article <CKE90E....@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de> mi...@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de 
(Michaela Merz) writes:
>>Sorry folks, I don't see the problem. What is the "shadow" we're talking
>>about (yes, I know what shadow is). Is it the libraries, the include files
>>or the compiled binaries that uses shadow security?
>
>It takes a lot more to support /etc/shadow that getspent() and <shadow.h>.
>Unless shadowing is fully and seamlessly integrated into all of the
>utilities that support users, groups, and so on, all you've managed to
>do is write a few function calls.  If you want to settle for second rate,
>that is of course your business.

Cheap shots like this one are what keep this flamewar going, so kindly
cut it out.

Face it Mr. Haugh, the fact that you have a licensing schedule for
for-profit use of the shadow suite has convinced people that it's a
commercial package (or was that post a couple days ago my imagination?).
Flaming Ian Murdock and Pat Volkerding, the creators of the Debian and
Slackware distributions respectively, when (to my knowledge) neither of them
has made a cent off their distributions has not helped people's opinions
of you either.  You tell others to check their facts before they posts,
but I'm not sure you've done this yourself on some occasions.

>>GREAT uses shadow security. After reading that libshadow isn't freeware,
>>we made our own little libshadow. It took about two hours for a little
>>hack that replaces the shadow password functions (the library does not
>>support group shadowing yet).
>
>=I= don't see what the problem is.  The Shadow Password Suite is about
>as free as you can get.  Repeatedly stating that Shadow isn't "free"
>won't make it stop being "free".  No one has ever been prevented from
>distributing Shadow.  No one has ever paid a single cent for Shadow. 
>Those are the facts, what you post is hysteria.

I have a suggestion:  if you don't like the fact that people are
publishing for-profit CDROM's with the shadow suite on them, why not
go after the people who make the CDROM's, rather than the distribution
creators (who are often NOT the same people)?  I think your anger is very
misdirected.

I'm sure somebody will take offense to something I've said.
C'est la guerre.

	--Troy
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------+
|   Troy A. Baer     | "A huge tyrannosaurus ate our lawyer.     |
| Senior, Aero. Engr.|  Well, I guess that proves...             |
| DOS?!? Try Linux!! |  They're really not all bad." -- Weird Al |
+--------------------+-------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!
chinacat!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan29.235542.12830@rpp386>
Reply-To: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
References: <CKE90E.Kqw@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de> <1994Jan29.161938.10691@rpp386> 
<2ie9jl$c66@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Sat, 29 Jan 1994 23:55:42 GMT
Lines: 51

In article <2ie9jl$...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> 
tab...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Highlander) writes:
>Face it Mr. Haugh, the fact that you have a licensing schedule for
>for-profit use of the shadow suite has convinced people that it's a
>commercial package (or was that post a couple days ago my imagination?).
>Flaming Ian Murdock and Pat Volkerding, the creators of the Debian and
>Slackware distributions respectively, when (to my knowledge) neither of them
>has made a cent off their distributions has not helped people's opinions
>of you either.  You tell others to check their facts before they posts,
>but I'm not sure you've done this yourself on some occasions.

At no time did Ian Murdock or Patrick Volkerding explain that their
distributions of Linux are freely available, which is the only thing
the copyright on Shadow requires (read it -- it says you MUST give it
away, by having anonymous FTP servers they have complied with that
requirement).

Do you know what I had to do to find out how these guys distribute
the code?  Did either of them bother to answer the letter they were
sent asking how they do their distributions?  NO!  Checking facts
often requires that the person having the facts co-operate.  In very
few cases have those persons co-operated.

I suggest you ask Richard Stallman what he would do if he found out
someone was probably distributing FSF code illegally and the
distributors didn't co-operate with his inquiries.  All that Ian and
Patrick had to do was explain HOW they distributed their code.

>I have a suggestion:  if you don't like the fact that people are
>publishing for-profit CDROM's with the shadow suite on them, why not
>go after the people who make the CDROM's, rather than the distribution
>creators (who are often NOT the same people)?  I think your anger is very
>misdirected.

Misdirected?  YOU continue to misrepresent the status of Shadow, despite
REPEATED statements by myself that Shadow isn't commercial, and you think
my anger is misdirected.

Truth be told, I've known for years that UUNET and the USENIX Association
sell CD-ROMs with the code on it for profit (gasp!).  But both of them
(and I know this for a fact with UUNET) make the code available by FTP
to anyone for FREE.

>I'm sure somebody will take offense to something I've said.
>C'est la guerre.

C'est la mama ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
The P.C. Movement killed the 1st Amendment, the Brady Bill the 2nd, the WOsD
got the 4th and 5th, political activism the 9th and 10th.  Not much left, eh?

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
news.kei.com!ub!ns.potsdam.edu!crynwr!nelson
From: nel...@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Date: 27 Jan 1994 17:02:54 -0500
Organization: Crynwr Software
Lines: 24
Sender: nel...@potsdam.edu
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <759387279snx@crynwr.com>
References: <1994Jan22.174258.20565@rpp386>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ns.potsdam.edu

In article <1994Jan22.174258.20565@rpp386> j...@rpp386.cactus.org writes:

   In article <1994Jan21.180607.17...@swan.pyr> iii...@swan.pyr (Alan Cox) writes:   
   >And unfortunately its neither the first time nor will it be the last time this   
   >has happened. But it is a distribution of linux problem not a linux issue -
   >and nobody has every claimed the distributions are GPL - much is BSD, or
   >assorted author copyrights.

   Uh, I've read the BSD copyright.  If you guys have trouble with my
   copyright, you guys should be throwing fits over the BSD copyright.

   This boils down to exactly one thing -- several distributors have
   threatened to "kill" Shadow if I don't GPL the code.

Well, either:

  1) You give special permission to the distributors to include shadow, or
  2) You change the copyright, or
  3) The distributors "kill" Shadow.

They don't really have a choice.

-russ <nel...@crynwr.com>      ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav
Crynwr Software   | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.      | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX)    | Quakers do it in the light
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!
cleveland.Freenet.Edu!bf703
From: bf...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Date: 30 Jan 1994 06:13:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <2ifj5s$83s@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
References: <CKE90E.Kqw@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de> <1994Jan29.161938.10691@rpp386> 
<2ie9jl$c66@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <1994Jan29.235542.12830@rpp386>
Reply-To: bf...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding)
NNTP-Posting-Host: nextsun.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) says:

>At no time did Ian Murdock or Patrick Volkerding explain that their
>distributions of Linux are freely available, which is the only thing
>the copyright on Shadow requires (read it -- it says you MUST give it
>away, by having anonymous FTP servers they have complied with that
>requirement).
>
>Do you know what I had to do to find out how these guys distribute
>the code?  Did either of them bother to answer the letter they were
>sent asking how they do their distributions?  NO!  Checking facts
>often requires that the person having the facts co-operate.  In very
>few cases have those persons co-operated.

I answered your mail *immediately* informing you of my non-commercial
status. I also find it hard to believe that Ian wouldn't have contacted
you right away as well. Could there be a mail problem on your end? I 
still have a copy of the letter, BTW.

Anyway, nothing against you or your code but I'm not even allowed to
keep Shadow up for FTP on ftp.cdrom.com. The README in the / directory
explains why.

-- 
Patrick Volkerding
volke...@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu
bf...@cleveland.freenet.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10!jmaynard
From: jmayn...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan30.203221.29910@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
 	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
 	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: use...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <CKE90E.Kqw@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de> 
<2ie9jl$c66@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <1994Jan29.235542.12830@rpp386> 
<2ifj5s$83s@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: Sun, 30 Jan 94 20:32:21 GMT
Lines: 23

In article <2ifj5s$...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
Patrick J. Volkerding <bf...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>Anyway, nothing against you or your code but I'm not even allowed to
>keep Shadow up for FTP on ftp.cdrom.com. The README in the / directory
>explains why.

Oh? There must be something there that I missed, then; it didn't even mention 
Linux or the Shadow package.

I'm a happy new user of Slackware, and would like to see the Shadow package 
integrated into it. It appears that John would be more than willing to see 
that happen, since he has stated that having Slackware available for free 
satisfies the conditions of his license. What's the problem?

Until then, I'd like to use Shadow...what does it take to add it to my system?

BTW, Pat, did you get the bug report I sent you on the install script? I never 
got a reply.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"The difference between baseball and politics is that, in baseball, if you
               get caught stealing, you're out!" -- Ed Shanks

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!
cleveland.Freenet.Edu!bf703
From: bf...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Date: 31 Jan 1994 01:17:48 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <2ihm7s$9ae@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
References: <CKE90E.Kqw@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de> 
<2ie9jl$c66@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <1994Jan29.235542.12830@rpp386> 
<2ifj5s$83s@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <1994Jan30.203221.29910@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Reply-To: bf...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Patrick J. Volkerding)
NNTP-Posting-Host: nextsun.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jmayn...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Jay Maynard) says:

>In article <2ifj5s$...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
>Patrick J. Volkerding <bf...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>>Anyway, nothing against you or your code but I'm not even allowed to
>>keep Shadow up for FTP on ftp.cdrom.com. The README in the / directory
>>explains why.
>
>Oh? There must be something there that I missed, then; it didn't even mention 
>Linux or the Shadow package.
>

My apologies, I meant the /incoming directory.

-- 
Patrick Volkerding
volke...@mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu
bf...@cleveland.freenet.edu

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!swrinde!
cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan31.030818.3742@rpp386>
Reply-To: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
References: <1994Jan22.174258.20565@rpp386> <759387279snx@crynwr.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 03:08:18 GMT
Lines: 35

In article <759387279...@crynwr.com> nel...@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:
>Well, either:
>
>  1) You give special permission to the distributors to include shadow, or

So far I've not found a distributor who is in violation of the copyright
as it originally was written.  Not that any of them bothered to answer
the letter I gave them and give me this information, but none the less,
I have not found a single distributor (and that includes Patrick ...)
who did not give the code away (and in all cases it was available by
anonymous FTP) for free.

>  2) You change the copyright, or

Nope.  Not gonna happen.

>  3) The distributors "kill" Shadow.
>
>They don't really have a choice.

Hopefully you understand a bit better now.  To insure that you understand
in the future, repeat "Shadow is free" until you do understand.  If you
still don't understand, wait til 3.3.2 comes out.  That license, which is
essentially the same terms as before, is stolen from CrackLib.  Alec
says he stole it from Perl, but I can't find it anywhere in Perl.  I trust
you won't claim Crack and CrackLib aren't free?

>                    LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.

I think your propagandistic bent is showing.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
 There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
 States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!
chinacat!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan31.032029.3862@rpp386>
Reply-To: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
References: <2ie9jl$c66@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> 
<1994Jan29.235542.12830@rpp386> <2ifj5s$83s@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 03:20:29 GMT
Lines: 72

In article <2ifj5s$...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bf...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu 
(Patrick J. Volkerding) writes:
>I answered your mail *immediately* informing you of my non-commercial
>status. I also find it hard to believe that Ian wouldn't have contacted
>you right away as well. Could there be a mail problem on your end? I 
>still have a copy of the letter, BTW.

I got your answer.  All it says is

| Hello Sir:
| 
| First, my apologies for not responding sooner, but I was out of town on
| business.
| 
| I obtained the "shadow.tgz" package which used to be a part of Slackware
| directly from the SLS Linux distribution. For a variety of reasons, I
| elected to remove it from Slackware some time ago in favor of a system
| which does not use shadow passwords. I was never made aware of the
| commercial status of the software in any of the documentation provided
| with SLS.
| 
| I am not a commercial entity - I only do what I do to help support the
| free software cause. I do not sell copies of Slackware, press CDs, etc. I
| only maintain the central archive at ftp.cdrom.com. All copies of the
| shadow password software have been removed from this site.
| 
| I assure you that I had no intention of violating your copyrights - I
| thought the software came from BSD. The software I recieved had
| been stripped of any copyright notices and was distributed in binary 
| form.
| 
| If you've got any questions about it, let me know. I really hope you're
| not too upset with me.
| 
| Take care,
| 
| Pat

Which part of what you are doing is "commercial"?  Which part of
giving the code away on ftp.cdrom.com constitutes the "commercial"
activity?  Which part of anything you did lead you to believe that
you were restricted from distributing Shadow?

>Anyway, nothing against you or your code but I'm not even allowed to
>keep Shadow up for FTP on ftp.cdrom.com. The README in the / directory
>explains why.

| Welcome to ftp.cdrom.com.  This ftp site is owned and operated by
| Walnut Creek CDROM.  If you have any problems, questions or
| suggestions, please send email to ftp-b...@ftp.cdrom.com.
| 
| pub            -- ftp.cdrom.com public archive
| pub/aminet     -- Aminet Amiga Archive
| pub/cdrom      -- Information about CD-ROMs
| pub/FreeBSD    -- FreeBSD Operating System
| pub/games      -- The Giga-Games Archive of MSDOS and MS-Windows games
| pub/os2        -- The Hobbes OS/2 Archive
| pub/XFree86    -- X11R5 Window System for FreeBSD Operating System
| 
| Most of these archives are available on CDROM.  For a list of available
| CDROMs, please see the file pub/cdrom/catalog.

Where is this explanation?  I spent the last 10 minutes looking for some
GENUINE reason and can't find one.  I read a couple of README files and
none gave this reason.  Here is the README you mention.  Which part of
this README file explains why you can't put Shadow on an FTP server to be
given away?  UUNET Communications has Shadow on there, surely UUNET
Communications has better lawyers than Walnut Creek ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
 There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
 States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!
chinacat!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan31.032241.3951@rpp386>
Reply-To: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
References: <1994Jan29.235542.12830@rpp386> <2ifj5s$83s@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
<1994Jan30.203221.29910@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 03:22:41 GMT
Lines: 19

In article <1994Jan30.203221.29...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jmayn...@nyx10.cs.du.edu 
(splut) writes:
>I'm a happy new user of Slackware, and would like to see the Shadow package 
>integrated into it. It appears that John would be more than willing to see 
>that happen, since he has stated that having Slackware available for free 
>satisfies the conditions of his license. What's the problem?
>
>Until then, I'd like to use Shadow...what does it take to add it to my system?

I have the 3.3.1.dif file and they are in 3.3.2.  You can wait until
I post it to comp.sources.misc or you can send me a note with a return
address (say, your Linux box?) and I'll advance mail you a copy.

BTW -- when are you going to take me up for a plane ride?  At least
Allen has taken me flying once or twice ...
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
 There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
 States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
uunet!zib-berlin.de!zrz.TU-Berlin.DE!netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!sun4nl!
hacktic!draconia.hacktic.nl!draconia.hacktic.nl!ron
From: r...@draconia.hacktic.nl ()
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Date: 31 Jan 1994 04:32:47 GMT
Organization: Draconia, the land of fantasy
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <2ii1lf$1o8@draconia.hacktic.nl>
References: <1994Jan19.202501.19435@swan.pyr> <1994Jan21.035506.1134@rpp386> 
<1994Jan21.180607.17012@swan.pyr> <1994Jan22.174258.20565@rpp386> 
<2i62u4$rlr@celsius.ifm.liu.se>
NNTP-Posting-Host: loopback.hacktic.nl
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

Peter Eriksson (pe...@ifm.liu.se) wrote:
: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) writes:

[ lot of stuff deleted ]

: /usr/include/shadow.h:

: /*
:  * Copyright 1988, 1989, 1990, John F. Haugh II
:  * All rights reserved.
:  *
:  * Use, duplication, and disclosure prohibited without
:  * the express written permission of the author.
:  */



: /usr/src/libc-linux/grp/gshadow.c:

: /*
:  * Copyright 1990, 1991, John F. Haugh II
:  * All rights reserved.
:  *
:  * Permission is granted to copy and create derivative works for any
:  * non-commercial purpose, provided this copyright notice is preserved
:  * in all copies of source code, or included in human readable form
:  * and conspicuously displayed on all copies of object code or
:  * distribution media.
:  */


: /Peter

I didn't want to get involved, believe me I really didn't want getting INVOLVED
Oh well....

Are the two statements above not contrary to each other, I always thought my
english to be pretty good and the way I read them is statement 1:
  You may not do anything with this code untill you have permission from
  the copyright owner.
statement 2:
  You may do anything with this code if you don't make any money from it
  as long as you keep the copyright notice in it.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I shouldn't butt my nose in, but I just want to know
wether I'm reading/understanding this right.
--



		Ron Smits
		r...@draconia.hacktic.nl
		Ron.Sm...@Netherlands.NCR.COM

/*-( My opinions are my opinions, My boss's opinions are his opinions )-*/
/*-(                They might not be the same                         -*/

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10!jmaynard
From: jmayn...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Jan31.024019.22506@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
 	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
 	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: use...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <CKE90E.Kqw@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de> <2ifj5s$83s@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> 
<1994Jan30.203221.29910@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <2ihm7s$9ae@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 94 02:40:19 GMT
Lines: 39

In article <2ihm7s$...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
Patrick J. Volkerding <bf...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>>>Anyway, nothing against you or your code but I'm not even allowed to
>>>keep Shadow up for FTP on ftp.cdrom.com. The README in the / directory
>>>explains why.

Here's the README he refers to:

   ************************************************************************
   *                                                                      *
   *  The material at this ftp site is periodicaly placed on CDROM and    *
   *  sold for profit.  Do not upload anything to this site that has      *
   *  distribution restrictions that prohibit this.                       *
   *                                                                      *
   *  By uploading to this site you are giving permission to Walnut       *
   *  Creek CDROM to include the software on CDROMs.                      *
   *                                                                      *
   *  If you upload any software that is not completely your own work,    *
   *  please ensure that the file can be freely redistributed.            *
   *                                                                      *
   *  If you upload any software that does not meet these conditions      *
   *  you are BREAKING THE LAW, and either the author or Walnut Creek     *
   *  CDROM may take legal action against you.                            *
   *                                                                      *
   ************************************************************************

OK, John, your turn: You've said that Slackware could include the Shadow 
package, since it's freely available for FTP. Is that still the case? If so, 
then _you_ could upload it to ftp.cdrom.com, in /incoming, and they would have 
no further cause for complaint.

Walnut Creek has every right to be concerned, as they've been burned before by 
putting software on CDROMs that wasn't freely redistributable (one case I'm 
aware of was on the QRZ! ham radio package).
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"The difference between baseball and politics is that, in baseball, if you
               get caught stealing, you're out!" -- Ed Shanks

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!
rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Feb1.033112.13759@rpp386>
Reply-To: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
References: <1994Jan30.203221.29910@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
<2ihm7s$9ae@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> <1994Jan31.024019.22506@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 03:31:12 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <1994Jan31.024019.22...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jmayn...@nyx10.cs.du.edu 
(Jay Maynard) writes:
>OK, John, your turn: You've said that Slackware could include the Shadow 
>package, since it's freely available for FTP. Is that still the case? If so, 
>then _you_ could upload it to ftp.cdrom.com, in /incoming, and they would have 
>no further cause for complaint.

I tried.  This is what I got --

ftp> cd shadow
250 CWD command successful.
ftp> pwd
257 "/.2/linux/incoming/shadow" is current directory.
ftp> mput *
200 PORT command successful.
553 part01.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part02.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part03.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part04.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part05.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part06.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part07.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part08.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part09.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part10.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part11.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part12.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part13.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 part14.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)
200 PORT command successful.
553 patch01.Z: Permission denied. (Upload)

Hmmm ...

>Walnut Creek has every right to be concerned, as they've been burned before by 
>putting software on CDROMs that wasn't freely redistributable (one case I'm 
>aware of was on the QRZ! ham radio package).

Shadow has always been freely redistributable.  I just copied from
ftp.uu.net, and UUNET has been putting Shadow on CD-ROMs as a convenience
to people for years (they put other things on as well ;-)
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
 There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
 States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!
rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <1994Feb1.033535.13836@rpp386>
Reply-To: j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX
References: <1994Jan22.174258.20565@rpp386> <2i62u4$rlr@celsius.ifm.liu.se> 
<2ii1lf$1o8@draconia.hacktic.nl>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 1994 03:35:35 GMT
Lines: 38

In article <2ii1lf$...@draconia.hacktic.nl> r...@draconia.hacktic.nl () writes:
>I didn't want to get involved, believe me I really didn't want getting INVOLVED
>Oh well....
>
>Are the two statements above not contrary to each other, I always thought my
>english to be pretty good and the way I read them is statement 1:
>  You may not do anything with this code untill you have permission from
>  the copyright owner.
>statement 2:
>  You may do anything with this code if you don't make any money from it
>  as long as you keep the copyright notice in it.
>
>Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I shouldn't butt my nose in, but I just want to know
>wether I'm reading/understanding this right.

Glad you pointed that out, I was afraid everyone was nodding their
heads and not paying complete attention or something to that effect.

The confusion seems to stem from lack of understanding on a single
point.  The README file, which is part of the distribution, does
give written permission to copy, etc., the files.

As to why the copyright notices have never been changed, those files
have been checked out for any changes in several years.  I don't
bother to update the copyright notices until the files need to be
altered.

On another note, I was wondering which files from the distribution
might be worthwhile to put under the GPL.  I'm not willing to GPL
all of the code, but I would be willing to GPL a subset with the
understanding that I will never provide any support whatsoever for
it.  I figure shadow.c, and 4 or 5 other files should give a good
foundation for the GPL fanatics to use.
-- 
John F. Haugh II  [ NRA-ILA ] [ Kill Barney ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151 [GOP][DoF #17][PADI][ENTJ]   @'s: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
 There are three documents that run my life: The King James Bible, the United
 States Constitution, and the UNIX System V Release 4 Programmer's Reference.

Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!
portal!imurdock
From: imurd...@shell.portal.com (Ian A Murdock)
Subject: Re: Linux Distributions and the Shadow Password Suite
Message-ID: <CKIIwJ.GL6@unix.portal.com>
Sender: n...@unix.portal.com
Nntp-Posting-Host: jobe.shell.portal.com
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 
(data)
References: <CKE90E.Kqw@eurom.fsag.rhein-main.de> 
<2ie9jl$c66@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> <1994Jan29.235542.12830@rpp386> 
<2ifj5s$83s@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 1994 21:12:09 GMT
Lines: 28

In article <2ifj5s$...@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>,
Patrick J. Volkerding <bf...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
>
>In a previous article, jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II) says:
>
>>At no time did Ian Murdock or Patrick Volkerding explain that their
>>distributions of Linux are freely available, which is the only thing
>>the copyright on Shadow requires (read it -- it says you MUST give it
>>away, by having anonymous FTP servers they have complied with that
>>requirement).
>>
>>Do you know what I had to do to find out how these guys distribute
>>the code?  Did either of them bother to answer the letter they were
>>sent asking how they do their distributions?  NO!  Checking facts
>>often requires that the person having the facts co-operate.  In very
>>few cases have those persons co-operated.
>
>I answered your mail *immediately* informing you of my non-commercial
>status. I also find it hard to believe that Ian wouldn't have contacted
>you right away as well. Could there be a mail problem on your end? I 
>still have a copy of the letter, BTW.

I did.  Received John's mail on January 2 and replied on January 3, as
I told him in a private mail earlier today.

Ian
--
Ian Murdock <imurd...@shell.portal.com>