On Sat, Dec 28, 2019, 3:38 PM Rodney W. Grimes <free...@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 > rgri...@freebsd.org > -- > Rod Grimes > rgri...@freebsd.org > _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
