svn commit: r192800 - in head/sys: cddl/compat/opensolaris/kern cddl/compat/opensolaris/sys cddl/contrib/opensolaris/common/acl cddl/contrib/opensolaris/uts/common/fs/zfs cddl/contrib/opensolaris/u...

[Ivan Voras]

2009/5/26 Robert Watson <rwatson at freebsd.org>:
>
> On Tue, 26 May 2009, Brooks Davis wrote:
>
>>>> Cute though this BSD license variation is, I'm pretty sure it's not on
>>>> the approved license list. ??Sticking to the standard license templates
>>>> potentially saves significant trouble later -- especially when people
>>>
>>> Hmm, I'm sure that there exists some SVN magic which would allow authors
>>> to enter something
>>>
>>> $BSDL2 Charlie Root 2008,2009$
>>>
>>> and it expands to a perfect boilerplate on checkout :)
>>
>> Such a change would result in a repository filled without license blocks.
>> This might be appropriate in a corporate setting, but isn't worth
>> considering here since copies of the repo would lack correct attributions.
>
> I'd assumed that it was a tongue-in-cheek proposal, myself :-).
>
> (It is, right?)

Yes, because I knew about the repository issue when I wrote it but
then I started thinking about it some more. If statements like "please
see LICENSE.TXT for licensing" are legally valid (and at least Sun
thinks so because their standard license header basically says: "this
is a CDDL-licensed file, see $url for details"), why wouldn't this be?
It is of course an academic point if for nothing else then because an
Open source project needs to be defensive and conservative in these
matters but now I don't consider it invalid.