Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Someone has pointed out that the following files have the 4-part BSD
> > copyright, which includes the advertising clause:
> >
> > src/backend/port/darwin/system.c
> > src/backend/port/dynloader/freebsd.c
> > src/backend/port/dynloader/openbsd.c
> > src/backend/port/dynloader/netbsd.c
> > src/backend/utils/mb/wstrcmp.c
> > src/backend/utils/mb/wstrncmp.c
> > src/port/strtoul.c
> > src/port/getopt.c
> > src/port/getopt_long.c
> > src/port/inet_aton.c
> > src/port/strtol.c
> > src/port/snprintf.c
> > contrib/pgcrypto/blf.c
> > contrib/pgcrypto/blf.h
> >
> > Because Berkeley has said the advertising clause is to be
> > ignored/removed, should we remove it from our files too?
> >
>
> I don't think we *need* to remove it, but I agree we should remove it
> for the sake of clarity. Note that the UC declaration only applies to
> code that is copyright UC Berkeley -- which is most of the above files,
> but not all of them (e.g. blf.c and blf.h are copyright Niels Provos).
>
> Rather than removing the copyright clause per se, it might be better to
> just update to the latest versions of these files in an upstream source
> (e.g. NetBSD). They've already gone through their source tree and
> updated the Berkeley copyrights as appropriate.
I removed the advertising clause from all the BSD-copyrighted files from
Berkeley, namely all but */blf.*. I didn't update them from upsteam
sources because some don't have clear upstream sources, and an update
isn't a trivial operation --- if we need to update, it should be
separate operation on all files, not just the ones with advertising
clauses.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
