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

[Rodney W. Grimes]

> On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 10:27 PM Rodney W. Grimes <freebsd at gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > > > 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.
> >
> 
> 
> Until such time as Jeff finishes rewriting the files, then we just nerf the
> 4 clause one as no longer relevant since it describes no code in the file
> anymore...

Slippery slope as that would require a very detailed audit to
make sure at no time in any way did Jeff or anyone else copy
or retain any original code.

> 
> We've done exactly the thing Jeff did hundreds if not thousands of times
> already in the project in code spanning
> at least the last 25 or so years...

I have to call BS on that claim, the project is just barely past
25 years old, and we certainly did not do any of this at that
time, and further the 3 clause came into existance in 1999, and
the 2 clause was that same time frame, so possibly 20 years.

Please show me the 100 to 1000's of files that this occured in.

>  Not sure why it's coming up now over an annotation that has a
> specific meaning that's clear and well defined.

No one pendantically legal has been watching commits for 20 years
is probably why?

> Warner
-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org