Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 11:42:50 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@bec.de> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@freebsd.org>, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org>, Mark Peek <mp@freebsd.org>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r331510 - in head: share/man/man4 sys/conf sys/dev/vmware/vmci sys/modules/vmware sys/modules/vmware/vmci Message-ID: <CANCZdfqAruFThxRPxw-cAOpc%2BYz3xVKjbndz4QvBsMz=egMCsg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20180325163534.GB23474@britannica.bec.de> References: <8dffed54-3319-d826-5ec1-fd80155a3921@FreeBSD.org> <201803251603.w2PG3KLQ041797@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <20180325163534.GB23474@britannica.bec.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@bec.de> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 09:03:20AM -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > Kirk would have to back me up on this, but my understanding of the > > decisions that the UCB Regents legal staff came to was that each > > file should have a complete copyright and license clause and any > > thing less causes problems because of "seprability", and "alterability" > > because of seperate files. > > Are you talking about a decision made before the USA joined the rest of > the civilised world as signee of the Berne Convention? The copyright > notice was certainly required at the time. A full license clause is > nicer for "stealing" things, but certainly not required. > BSD 2.11 has an indirection notice: * Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California. * All rights reserved. The Berkeley software License Agreement * specifies the terms and conditions for redistribution. for example. 4.1 and 4.2 didn't have license notices added. 4.3 had something similar to BSD 2.11's notices. NET/2 is where they were added inline, and is the first place I can find additions to the license that talk about 'this software was contributed by XXX under contract to YYYY' and variations of the BSD license appear. 4.4 take this to a new level. So this isn't the Berne Convention thing, but rather a conscious decision at Berkeley to do something different, I think because they were starting to get / include software that wasn't under the exact BSD license, but some variant or something different that was compatible with it, so they needed to mark each file. However, the SPDX accomplishes that task in a format that properly separates out the copyright notice from the licensing notice. So I see nothing fundamentally wrong with this approach, and requiring copies of a license that buys us nothing just creates friction for external contributors that make them less willing to contribute without buying us any additional benefit. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfqAruFThxRPxw-cAOpc%2BYz3xVKjbndz4QvBsMz=egMCsg>