Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2019 03:46:46 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@freebsd.org> Cc: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head <svn-src-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r356142 - in head/sys: dev/ofw sys Message-ID: <CANCZdfpchgD0usbyMH_92tUfxBpQpRa7ZRxRSqzXZO69L1KLLA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201912280555.xBS5tRtL041837@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> References: <CANCZdfr%2BY=4S2UKTs40k5dMHx3Z4dHiu0Ur--nzgLORUzdsNJA@mail.gmail.com> <201912280555.xBS5tRtL041837@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:55 PM Rodney W. Grimes <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:27 PM Rodney W. Grimes < > freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > You can choose your own license for original work, sure, but > > > obliterating > > > > > parts of an existing license by applying a second license which is > in > > > > > conflict is probably a poor idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > We don't do that at all: pretty clearly there is no conflict between > > > > both licenses as you can comply with both. > > > > > > The only way to comply with both is to comply with the full 4 > > > clause license. Hense the 2 clause is pointless in being there > > > and can never apply until all 4 clause authors agree to change > > > to 2 clause. > > > > > > > > > Until such time as Jeff finishes rewriting the files, then we just nerf > the > > 4 clause one as no longer relevant since it describes no code in the file > > anymore... > > Slippery slope as that would require a very detailed audit to > make sure at no time in any way did Jeff or anyone else copy > or retain any original code. One we've done dozens of times in the project's history. People rewrite things all the time. From the tty layer to things in the vm. > > > > We've done exactly the thing Jeff did hundreds if not thousands of times > > already in the project in code spanning > > at least the last 25 or so years... > > I have to call BS on that claim, the project is just barely past > Please watch the tone of your replies. This is not an acceptable tone. > 25 years old, and we certainly did not do any of this at that > time, and further the 3 clause came into existance in 1999, and > the 2 clause was that same time frame, so possibly 20 years. > We have several files with 2 clause that date to 1996 (look at many of the elf_machdep.c files have this date). Both FreeBSD and NetBSD used 2 or 3 clause licenses well in advance of the regent's letter... > Please show me the 100 to 1000's of files that this occured in. > sys/kern alone has many of them, though this sort of thing is hard to grep for. sys/arm/arm has some. sys/mips/mips has some more. Many with dates going back at least 15 years. sys/arm/arm/support.S has one that has 3 different sets of clauses, the most recent of which is 2004, the earliest 1997 ( NetBSD, Wasabi and Olivier Houchard). A grep of the kernel shows ~200 .c, ~20 .s and ~80 .h files that have multiple licenses, though grep is the wrong tool to know how many are identical and how many vary. A quick audit suggests maybe 5-10% of these are likely to vary. so not hundreds or thousands, but not zero either. I've not looked at userland at all with this quick grep. > Not sure why it's coming up now over an annotation that has a > > specific meaning that's clear and well defined. > > No one pendantically legal has been watching commits for 20 years > is probably why? > What about the many legal reviews done by companies that produce FreeBSD products over the years. Those generally flag things like the beerware license, but not this detail.... Warnerhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfpchgD0usbyMH_92tUfxBpQpRa7ZRxRSqzXZO69L1KLLA>