On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 09:27:22AM +0200, cho...@jtan.com wrote: > "Theo de Raadt" writes: > > > Is there, by chance, such a breakdown available for these already? > > > > No. We did our best. > > To be fair, these statements are potentially contradictory. If you (plural) > only "did your best" (and what more could have been done?) then it is at > least in *theory* possible that some mis-licensed piece of code slipped > through. > > In fact I expect this didn't happen, but regardless ...
The OpenBSD source tree was in fact license audited at one point, more less as a direct response to the IPF episode that lead to us no having PF instead. I think the message Theo wrote to misc@ in early 2003 serves to illustrate the amount of work that went into this: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=104570938124454&w=2 During the roughly 15 years since then, everybody involved in adding or removing code in the source tree have been very aware of the licensing issue, and I think we can state with some confidence that no improperly licensed code or other material has been added to the OpenBSD source tree during that period. If you have sufficient time on your hands to read all the OpenBSD source in order to track down anything that the early noughties licensing audit missed there's nothing stopping you, of course. But I would think that peeking around the CVS history of various items referenced in Theo's message would serve to convince most sane people that a a significant effort was put in to ensure that the tree has no improperly licensed material. - Peter -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team http://bsdly.blogspot.com/ http://www.bsdly.net/ http://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
