[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [gNewSense-users] BSD code

From: Peter and Jesse
Subject: Re: [gNewSense-users] BSD code
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:58:55 -0700

On Fri, 2008-25-04 at 20:01 +0200, Sam Geeraerts wrote:
> Peter and Jesse wrote:
> >> The copyright notice says "The Regents of the University of California" 
> >> (plural) so there might be more than one person you can contact?
> >>
> >> If we could find who put the update-statement in there we could ask that 
> >> person. The best thing I could find was 
> >>, which shows 
> >> that the update was introduced in 2.4.0. Does anybody know of an easy 
> >> web front end to the kernel revision logs so that we can find the author 
> >> of the change?
> > 
> > Ooh, you're right. I contacted Paul Mackerras (paulus), but looking at
> > the old kernels, his time-stamped name is there before the license was
> > changed. Regarding the Regents of the University of California, they
> > would have been the copyright holders in the original license, so I
> > wouldn't think they would have anything to do with the problematic
> > introduction. However, if folks want, I can try to get a hold of the
> > appropriate people at the U of C.
> >  Peter
> > 
> Well, the automatic change from original BSD license to modified BSD 
> license applied to all code originating from Berkeley. So if they can 
> confirm that this code is theirs and that it now falls under the 
> modified BSD license then we can give the OK on this code and ask 
> upstream to make the update statement more clear (copyright -> license, 
> add reference to license change, explain module-only restriction).

Now I'm a little confused. Is the issue here the ambiguity of the
update-statement, or whether the code is from the original UCB code base
or not?
 clearly says that the code is from the source code from the compress program 
from 4.3BSD. Can't we take his word for it? Although
 does not say explicitly say where the code comes from, looking through the 
code I think it's pretty clear that it's that same compress program.
Regarding contacting upstream, it would be great for the
update-statement to be a lot clearer. Does anyone know who we would
contact? The kernel-devel list? I got a pretty curt response from paulus
(who, indeed, did not write the problematic update-statement).

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]