license cleanup
This patch cleans up the licensing terms on some imported BSD-licensed
files in the source tree:
- src/port/qsort.c is from NetBSD, and still contained the old 4-clause
BSD license. The NetBSD folks have updated the BSD licensing terms in
their CVS code, so I upgraded our copy to the latest CVS copy (I just
merged the licensing fixes, no other substantive changes were made).
- src/port/crypt.c is also from NetBSD, so I updated the licensing terms
in a similar fashion. I also merged another upstream change: a bunch of
static read-only arrays were const-ified.
- src/port/memcmp.c was imported from NetBSD, but whoever imported it
didn't also include the licensing terms (which is not good, needless to
say). I added the copyright blurb from the current version of the file
in NetBSD CVS.
There is a bunch more license cleanup of this kind that can be done, but
this is a start.
I was also going to update the licenses on files imported from FreeBSD,
but apparently they haven't bothered fixing their files to reflect the
3-clause Berkeley license. Of course the fact they haven't done this
doesn't matter (the license change applies anyway); do people think it
is worth modifying the licenses on these imported files anyway?
Barring any objections I intend to apply this patch on Tuesday.
-Neil
Attachments:
license-fixes-2.patchtext/plain; name=license-fixes-2.patch; x-mac-creator=0; x-mac-type=0Download+97-107
Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com> writes:
This patch cleans up the licensing terms on some imported BSD-licensed
files in the source tree:
Looks good.
I was also going to update the licenses on files imported from FreeBSD,
but apparently they haven't bothered fixing their files to reflect the
3-clause Berkeley license. Of course the fact they haven't done this
doesn't matter (the license change applies anyway); do people think it
is worth modifying the licenses on these imported files anyway?
I think it is a real bad idea to unilaterally change the copyright text
in files we got from somewhere else, no matter how benign our intentions.
Instead, how about adopting the NetBSD version of the functionality?
If the files did indeed come from UCB originally, then NetBSD should
have a copy too ...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
I think it is a real bad idea to unilaterally change the copyright text
in files we got from somewhere else, no matter how benign our intentions.
Agreed.
Instead, how about adopting the NetBSD version of the functionality?
If the files did indeed come from UCB originally, then NetBSD should
have a copy too ...
Attached is a patch that replaces src/port/{strtol.c,strtoul.c} with
versions derived from current NetBSD CVS sources, which has a 3-clause
BSD license. The code is different than the FreeBSD sources in a few
ways (mostly trivial); I've eyeballed the diffs and I couldn't see
anything that would result in a change in behavior, but I may have
missed something. The NetBSD sources are actually better in a few ways
(e.g. they don't use the "register" keyword).
Barring any objections, I intend to apply this patch to HEAD on Tuesday.
There are a few more files whose licenses need updating, but I'll leave
that for later. And of course, there's contrib/ to sort out as well...
-Neil
Attachments:
freebsd-to-netbsd-port-1.patchtext/plain; name=freebsd-to-netbsd-port-1.patch; x-mac-creator=0; x-mac-type=0Download+249-250
Neil Conway wrote:
Attached is a patch that replaces src/port/{strtol.c,strtoul.c} with
versions derived from current NetBSD CVS sources, which has a
3-clause BSD license.
In my opinion, this is a completely pointless exercise in replacing
perfectly good code with code that we didn't know until today. Not
during beta please.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Neil Conway wrote:
Attached is a patch that replaces src/port/{strtol.c,strtoul.c} with
versions derived from current NetBSD CVS sources, which has a
3-clause BSD license.In my opinion, this is a completely pointless exercise in replacing
perfectly good code with code that we didn't know until today. Not
during beta please.
Oh good, I feared it was just me that thought that this seemed like a 'not
so good' idea :(
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Tue, 2004-10-05 at 00:11, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
In my opinion, this is a completely pointless exercise in replacing
perfectly good code with code that we didn't know until today. Not
during beta please.
Well, I think the chance of there being a bug in NetBSD's strtol/strtoul
(that doesn't also exist in FreeBSD's) is slim to none. But I'm fine
with not applying the second patch until we branch for 8.1
-Neil