Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:48:43 -0700 (PDT) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> Cc: rgrimes@freebsd.org, Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org>, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r335454 - head/usr.bin/ar Message-ID: <201806210048.w5L0mhv8076926@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <edb98721-9255-f58b-93a2-34f26c5d8a7c@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 20/06/2018 17:42, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > >> Author: emaste > >> Date: Wed Jun 20 18:43:17 2018 > >> New Revision: 335454 > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/335454 > >> > >> Log: > >> usr.bin/ar: use standard 2-Clause FreeBSD license > >> > >> Many licenses on ar files contained small variations from the standard > >> FreeBSD license text. To avoid license proliferation switch to the usual > >> 2-clause FreeBSD license after obtaining permission from all copyright > >> holders. > >> > >> Approved by: jkoshy, kaiw, kientzle > >> Sponsored by: The FreeBSD Foundation > >> Differential Revision: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14561 > >> > >> Modified: > >> head/usr.bin/ar/ar.c > >> head/usr.bin/ar/read.c > >> head/usr.bin/ar/util.c > >> > >> Modified: head/usr.bin/ar/ar.c > >> ============================================================================== > >> --- head/usr.bin/ar/ar.c Wed Jun 20 17:37:55 2018 (r335453) > >> +++ head/usr.bin/ar/ar.c Wed Jun 20 18:43:17 2018 (r335454) > >> @@ -1,4 +1,6 @@ > >> /*- > >> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-3-Clause > >> + * > > I think there may be an error above, commit message says 2 clause, > > license below appears to be 2 clause, yet above we have 3? > Look at all the file: there are two licenses there. My claim still stands, the commit message and reality do not match, Ed claimed that he was switching to 2-clause FreeBSD license, yet it does not appear to actually do that. It further claims that he obtained permission from ALL copyright holders, which also appears to not be true, or he could of removed the 3 clause. The dual license is an even bigger can of worms, as then technically this file is neither BSD-2-Clause nor BSD-3-Clause, but some hybrid that has to be treated specially. Does SPDX have rules for dual tagging a file? I seem to recall that there was some way to do that at least. I am unclear as to it even be legal or valid to have added the 2 clause license on top of the BSD 3 clause license. > Pedro. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201806210048.w5L0mhv8076926>