svn commit: r356142 - in head/sys: dev/ofw sys

[Rodney W. Grimes]

[ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> 
> On 2019-12-27 23:24, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ]
> >> On 2019-12-27 22:16, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> >>>> Author: pfg
> >>>> Date: Sat Dec 28 02:58:30 2019
> >>>> New Revision: 356142
> >>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/356142
> >>>>
> >>>> Log:
> >>>>   SPDX: update some tags with two licenses.
> >>>>
> >>>> Modified:
> >>>>   head/sys/dev/ofw/openfirm.h
> >>>>   head/sys/sys/sched.h
> >>>>
> >>>> Modified: head/sys/dev/ofw/openfirm.h
> >>>> ==============================================================================
> >>>> --- head/sys/dev/ofw/openfirm.h	Sat Dec 28 02:11:41 2019	(r356141)
> >>>> +++ head/sys/dev/ofw/openfirm.h	Sat Dec 28 02:58:30 2019	(r356142)
> >>>> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> >>>>  /*	$NetBSD: openfirm.h,v 1.1 1998/05/15 10:16:00 tsubai Exp $	*/
> >>>>  
> >>>>  /*-
> >>>> - * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-4-Clause
> >>>> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: (BSD-4-Clause AND BSD-2-Clause-FreeBSD)
> >>>>   *
> >>>>   * Copyright (C) 1995, 1996 Wolfgang Solfrank.
> >>>>   * Copyright (C) 1995, 1996 TooLs GmbH.
> >>>>
> >>>> Modified: head/sys/sys/sched.h
> >>>> ==============================================================================
> >>>> --- head/sys/sys/sched.h	Sat Dec 28 02:11:41 2019	(r356141)
> >>>> +++ head/sys/sys/sched.h	Sat Dec 28 02:58:30 2019	(r356142)
> >>>> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> >>>>  /*-
> >>>> - * SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-4-Clause
> >>>> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: (BSD-4-Clause AND BSD-2-Clause-FreeBSD)
> >>>>   *
> >>>>   * Copyright (c) 1996, 1997
> >>>>   *      HD Associates, Inc.  All rights reserved.
> >>>>
> >>> This situation should not of occured, and leads to an ambigous license state.
> >> It actually happens a lot (I mean two or more licenses in the same
> >> file): SPDX explicitly uses AND (not OR) for cases like this.
> >>
> >>> What code is under license 2 clause and what under 4 clause? 
> >> Anyone redistributing the file has to respect both licenses. If you are
> >> lucky enough to have access to version control you may be able to
> >> discern the author and the corresponding license, otherwise you are
> >> trapped with both.
> > So the 2 clause add is null, so why have it there?
> 
> So that eventually, when the project gets to a point where sufficient
> part of the code is rewritten they can opt to change the license to the
> simpler form. There are ways to relicense projects gradually, and its
> nothing new, in fact it is very much in the BSD spirit to gradually
> replace more restricted UNIX code.

The only changing we have done to BSD licenses as in thost cases
that the Regents requested/granted the right to change to lesser
clauses.  Until you get HD & Associtates (in this one case) to
grant that right your walking on a grey edge I would rather not
walk on.

The reference to BSD spirit and replacing more restricted UNIX (tm)
code is way off base in this context.  This is not an AT & T
license we are talking about here.  And again you can not just
modify the existing 4 clause licensed file by slapping a 2 clause
license into it, or the project would of done that everyplace
ages ago.

What is done here in this file is a mistake, and should be corrected.
Can you point me to other files that actually have multiple BSD
licenses in them?

> 
> It may be a long shot but it has happened on other projects as well:
> libdialog (in our tree) was rewritten and relicensed from GPL to LGPL.
> 
> 
> >>> It looks to me as if this was done by Jeff Robinson as the 2 clause is
> >>> attached to his copyright and we should probably just ask him to relax
> >>> that back to the files existing 4 clause license, and or go after Greg
> >>> Ansley of HD associtates to get them to relax the 4 clause.
> >>>
> >> No, Jeff (or anyone else, as I said there are many cases in our tree) is
> >> entitled to choose his own license as long as it is compatible with the
> >> pre-existing licensing.
> > I was specifically sighting this one file, sys/sys/sched.h.
> >
> > Actually that might be a grey area, no place does the BSD license grant
> > you rights to modify the terms of the license, and that is in effect
> > what adding this second license does.
> 
> No one is modifying the original license: it is there and applies to the
> original code.
> 
> 
> > You can choose your own license for original work, sure, but obliterating
> > parts of an existing license by applying a second license which is in
> > conflict is probably a poor idea.
> 
> 
> We don't do that at all: pretty clearly there is no conflict between
> both licenses as you can comply with both.

The only way to comply with both is to comply with the full 4
clause license.  Hense the 2 clause is pointless in being there
and can never apply until all 4 clause authors agree to change
to 2 clause.

> Pedro.

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org