From owner-freebsd-current  Wed Dec 20 06:42:53 1995
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id GAA21317
          for current-outgoing; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 06:42:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id GAA21310
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 06:42:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id GAA01142; Wed, 20 Dec 1995 06:42:21 -0800
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
cc: current@freebsd.org, jkh@freefall.freebsd.org
Subject: Re: conf.c and USL copyright at top 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 Dec 1995 01:01:16 +1100."
             <199512201401.BAA03231@godzilla.zeta.org.au> 
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 06:42:21 -0800
Message-ID: <1140.819470541@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

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