svn commit: r327368 - head/sbin/ccdconfig

[Pedro Giffuni]

On 12/30/17 10:11, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>> Author: pfg
>> Date: Sat Dec 30 00:22:47 2017
>> New Revision: 327368
>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/327368
>>
>> Log:
>>    ccdconfig: Update licensing terms to match NetBSD.
>>    
>>    The code originated in NetBSD which has since removed Clauses 3 and 4.
>>    
>>    Approved by:	phk (concerning his own copyright)
>>    Obtained from:	NetBSD (CVS ccdconfig.c 1.47, ccdconfig.8 1.24)
> I am a bit on edge about these "license" changes that are occuring,
> before what you had been doing was adding "SPDX" tags which are just
> an advisory item, now your actually changing the text of licenses
> and doing so without second or third eyes and in a way that for me
> is a bit questionable.

That is correct.

I will be glad to move to "code review" mode from now on. I agree it is 
important to have more eyes on such changes. It just happens that even 
copyright owners sometimes don't want to look at these changes.

> Part of the problem comes that if you go back and pull a licence change
> from NetBSD that was done in 2000 and apply it to our code because it
> was dervied from there your ignoring the fact that someone else may
> of made changes between 2000 and today, and technically those changes
> fall under the licence that was inplace when they made those changes.

It is not as simple as that, I did check the changes that are relevant 
for us in NetBSD before the license changes. I might have missed 
something though, so yes I agree on having more eyes.

> Also the NetBSD license change may of been athorized directly, as in
> this case here where you got direct permission from phk, and I have not
> seen any notes about that in your prior commits.  Also note that if
> someone authorized NetBSD to make a license change, that authorization
> is NOT global in nature, it is for NetBSD to make that change, not
> *BSD.

Authorization from NetBSD would be necessary if we were including code 
from NetBSD that was not meant to be covered by the license change. I 
didn't find any evidence of that, but feel free to point out any such 
case so that we can take it to the NetBSD guys.

Pedro.