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

[Warner Losh]

On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 3:38 PM Rodney W. Grimes <freebsd at gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
wrote:

> >
> > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> >
> > > [ 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 seems to be the prevailing theory that headers are not even
> > really copyrightable.  This has even been tested in court a few times
> > (bsd, java).
>
> Yes, also true of scripts and Makefiles, which are generally
> considered under the recipts concept, yet we still have many
> which people are claiming copyright to.
>
> >
> > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0301.1/0362.html
> >
> > The original definitions from this file were part of posix.1b and so
> it's
> > hard to argue they are anything but public.  Coincidentally I know Greg
> > and I'm sure he would not object to reducing the whole file to a two
> > clause license.
>
> Then lets make life very simple in this one case, and I agree with
> your intuition about Greg, shoot an email off to him and ask to
> drop his licence to 2 clause.
>
> > However, I'm not so certain as you are that it is not possible to have
> two
> > copyrights in the same file so long as they are compatible.  In many
> cases
> > we have multiple authors attributed to an individual file.  There are
> > cases where software is purposefully licensed under multiple licenses.
>
> Ok, first off understand that Copyrights and Licenses are 2 very different
> things.  You can have N Copyrights in a file, having 2 or more licenses
> in a file without stating when which applies is frought with legal
> nightmares.  If you clearly state that you can use EITHER license,
> then it is ok, if you state that both licenses apply your in legal
> limbo if in anyway the joint set is ambigous or in conflict.
>
> Copyright != License.
>
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-licensing
> >
> > This is not an identical situation but it is a common one.
>
> Agreed, what is in that is not this situation, though it does
> clearly state there that the ONLY the copyright holder(s) can alter
> the license.  One could argue that adding a second license is infact
> altering the license, and hence legally a risky thing to do.
>
> > I called my
> > brother who is an IP lawyer and spoke with him about it today.  He
> > believes this is sufficiently nuanced that we would need a proper legal
> > opinion to determine that.
> So he seems to agree to me that this is legally a grey area,
> Im happy for that.
>
> >
> > I wrote the original file 17 years ago and placed a two clause copyright
> > in it.  trhodes combined sys/posix4/sched.h with sys/sched.h 13 years
> ago
> > in the following commit:
> >
> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/sys/sys/sched.h?revision=164185&view=markup
> >
> > So the original license was in fact two clause.
>
> That I did not know, thanks for the aditional information.
>
> >
> > If a mistake was made, it was made 13 years ago and it is almost
> > guaranteed to be legally harmless.
> > It has nothing to do with what Pedro
> > committed today.
> Agreed, what he did was just correct the SPDX to reflect what is present.
>
> > I don't trust the armchair lawyering of software
> > engineers and so to resolve this we would need to ask the foundation to
> > pay their lawyers to pursue it.
>
> As some software engineer did the commit that lead to this state,
> which I do not trust either.  It is simply something that I did
> not realize existed in the FreeBSD source code.
> It was put out for review with a commit stating "silence from -arch
> -standards.
>
> >
> > In my opinion, this has already wasted everyone's time with an
> irrelevant
> > nit-picking argument.
>
> Legal stance of copyright and licenses should NEVER be considered
> nit-picking arguments, they are the fundemantal premise that allow
> the project to do what it does and is infact the prima face mission
> of the foundation to preserve.
>
> It saddens me that a core team member would consider such issues
> as irrelevant.
>
> > The onus is not on Pedro to chase this down just so
> > he can add SPDX tags.  If this is important to you then you are welcome
> to
> > go sort out the details and then post patches for review.  I'm sure
> myself
> > and greg would be happy to do so.  However it seems that this wasn't
> even
> > worth reading the revision history for you to begin lecturing.
>
> I pointed it out as an issue, some tried to defend it as not an issue,
> I responded to there assertions, call it as you wish.
>

You did no research before wasting our time. I call that disrespectful and
not helpful.

Warner

> Jeff
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 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
> --
> Rod Grimes
> rgrimes at freebsd.org
>