Thread: BSD advertizing clause in some files
Someone has pointed out that the following files have the 4-part BSD copyright, which includes the advertising clause: src/backend/port/darwin/system.csrc/backend/port/dynloader/freebsd.csrc/backend/port/dynloader/openbsd.csrc/backend/port/dynloader/netbsd.csrc/backend/utils/mb/wstrcmp.csrc/backend/utils/mb/wstrncmp.csrc/port/strtoul.csrc/port/getopt.csrc/port/getopt_long.csrc/port/inet_aton.csrc/port/strtol.csrc/port/snprintf.ccontrib/pgcrypto/blf.ccontrib/pgcrypto/blf.h Because Berkeley has said the advertising clause is to be ignored/removed, should we remove it from our files too? -- 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. +
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. -Neil
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?
>
Yes.
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
> 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.
+1 ... that might buy us some functional improvements to justify the
effort ...
regards, tom lane
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. +
On 3/27/07, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > I removed the advertising clause from all the BSD-copyrighted files from > Berkeley, namely all but */blf.*. Their upstream is OpenBSD that still has same license. NetBSD and FreeBSD have even worse versions with ssleay license. I think I need to find new upstream for them... -- marko