From owner-p4-projects@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 9 08:08:08 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Delivered-To: p4-projects@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 32767) id 2E15B16A4E5; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:08:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: perforce@freebsd.org Delivered-To: perforce@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 083FE16A4DE for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:08:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from hselasky@c2i.net) Received: from swip.net (mailfe02.swip.net [212.247.154.33]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 548A943D53 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:08:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from hselasky@c2i.net) X-T2-Posting-ID: gvlK0tOCzrqh9CPROFOFPw== X-Cloudmark-Score: 0.000000 [] Received: from [193.216.87.71] (HELO [10.0.0.249]) by mailfe02.swip.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.8) with ESMTP id 253260712; Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:08:04 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky To: "M. Warner Losh" Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 10:08:12 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.7 References: <200608061822.k76IMif7005363@repoman.freebsd.org> <20060809.001219.-1303465484.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20060809.001219.-1303465484.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200608091008.13203.hselasky@c2i.net> Cc: perforce@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 103353 for review X-BeenThere: p4-projects@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: p4 projects tree changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 08:08:08 -0000 On Wednesday 09 August 2006 08:12, M. Warner Losh wrote: > In message: <200608061822.k76IMif7005363@repoman.freebsd.org> > > Hans Petter Selasky writes: > : + * Copyright (c) 2006 Hans Petter Selasky > : + * All rights reserved. > : + * > > Usually copyrights are added only in cases where a significant amount > of work has happend. While what you've done is interesting here, it > likely falls short of the legal test necessary. > Ok, so should I remove it? If you look at the diff between version 1 and the latest, you will see significant changes. --HPS