Date: Wed, 20 Dec 1995 17:32:58 +0000 (GMT) From: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk> To: FreeBSD-current@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD current mailing list) Subject: Re: conf.c and USL copyright at top Message-ID: <199512201732.RAA27092@cadair.elsevier.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <2820.819476198@critter.tfs.com> from "Poul-Henning Kamp" at Dec 20, 95 05:16:38 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply to Poul-Henning Kamp who said > > > 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? > right. > I don't think you can do that. Even if it's all completely new code you've been sticking it in a file with a USL copyright. You can't just rip off that copyright. Whoever made the changes released them under the USL copyright, I don't think you can do that either :-) You need to replace it with a completely rewritten file like Bill has done with the yp stuff. Of course, if a lot of the lines in the old file are yours and you type them into the new file because they're in your head then that's up to you :-) Not relevant for conf.c but it's worth getting the principle understood so people know what they can and can't do. The one thing you definately shouldn't do is check the thing out and then check it back in with a different copyright because it's not your copyright to remove. -- Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd. Internet: paul@netcraft.co.uk, http://www.netcraft.co.uk Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 1225 447500 (work)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199512201732.RAA27092>