Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 22:16:08 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 281541] rpcinfo: format of argument to -a flag is undocumented Message-ID: <bug-281541-9-eESJfUyOV8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-281541-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-281541-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D281541 --- Comment #4 from Graham Percival <gperciva@tarsnap.com> --- Thanks for your interest! At first glance, it looks as though you included more than a whole paragraph verbatim from RFC 5665. Is that common practice in FreeBSD? RFC 5665 states that code components are under the Simplified BSD License (which is 2-clause); however, the the latest legal provisions [1] say that = the previous version erroneously referred to "simplified BSD license" instead of "revised BSD license" (which is 3-clause). [1] https://trustee.ietf.org/documents/trust-legal-provisions/tlp-5/ Also, those are for "code components". I haven't yet found a definitive statement about the copyright and licensing for text itself; given that they carefully define "code components", I suspect that the text is not under so permissive a license. ... Also, I don't think this needs such a verbose answer. My guess is that 2 o= r 3 sentences, along with a reminder that it's defined in RFC 5665 (with a link= in the SEE ALSO section), would be sufficient. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-281541-9-eESJfUyOV8>