Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 20 Dec 1995 06:42:21 -0800
From:      "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
To:        Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org, jkh@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: conf.c and USL copyright at top 
Message-ID:  <1140.819470541@time.cdrom.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 Dec 1995 01:01:16 %2B1100." <199512201401.BAA03231@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
OK, so it was a mistake to add code to encumbered files.  No argument
from anybody on that point, I'm pretty sure.  However, do we just
throw up our hands in defeat?  I surely hope not!  Your analysis below
would certainly suggest to me that removing the USL copyright is now
an option we can realistically entertain.  It's not even remotely
"derived" from now.  In our CVS tree, we're no worse off than before.
In our exported tree, it's one less encumbered file, right?

					Jordan


> >I'm wondering if this can reasonably be assumed to be USL copywritable
> >anymore? :-)  It's been almost entirely ripped to shreds by Julian! :-)
> 
> USL probably wrote these parts:
> 
> 	the filename :-)
> 	their copyright :-)
> 	`struct bdevsw '
> 	`int nblkdev = '
> 	`struct cdevsw '
> 	`int nchrdev = '
> 
> The rest is probably new in 4.4lite (only device classification functions
> are left, and they are mainly used to support security levels).
> 
> It was a mistake to add code to encumbered files.
> 
> Bruce




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1140.819470541>