Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 20:07:59 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: rgrimes@freebsd.org, Piotr Pawel Stefaniak <pstef@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r334630 - head/usr.bin/indent Message-ID: <1528164479.32688.223.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201806050000.w5500Men098070@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <201806050000.w5500Men098070@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 17:00 -0700, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > > Author: pstef > > Date: Mon Jun 4 20:24:31 2018 > > New Revision: 334630 > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/334630 > > > > Log: > > indent(1): remove static const char copyright[] > > > > It repeats what is already said in the heading comment and it's optimized out > > so serves no purpose. > The purpose would be to put a copyright into the binary, and why that is not > happening when the original authors intended that is not good. > > This is a regression, as 5.4p8 shows: > {108}% strings /usr/bin/indent | grep -i copy > bcopy > @(#) Copyright (c) 1985 Sun Microsystems, Inc. > @(#) Copyright (c) 1976 Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois. > @(#) Copyright (c) 1980, 1993 > > Please walk very very very carefully around all things "copyright". > Does it matter what the original author intended? Nothing in the license text itself requires that copyright info be included in the binary (it just has to be in the docs and accompanying materials). So why would an edit to remove that from the binary be any different than any other edit to the code that any committer chooses to make? -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1528164479.32688.223.camel>