Neil Conway wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Someone has pointed out that the following files have the 4-part BSD > > copyright, which includes the advertising clause: > > > > src/backend/port/darwin/system.c > > src/backend/port/dynloader/freebsd.c > > src/backend/port/dynloader/openbsd.c > > src/backend/port/dynloader/netbsd.c > > src/backend/utils/mb/wstrcmp.c > > src/backend/utils/mb/wstrncmp.c > > src/port/strtoul.c > > src/port/getopt.c > > src/port/getopt_long.c > > src/port/inet_aton.c > > src/port/strtol.c > > src/port/snprintf.c > > contrib/pgcrypto/blf.c > > contrib/pgcrypto/blf.h > > > > Because Berkeley has said the advertising clause is to be > > ignored/removed, should we remove it from our files too? > > > > I don't think we *need* to remove it, but I agree we should remove it > for the sake of clarity. Note that the UC declaration only applies to > code that is copyright UC Berkeley -- which is most of the above files, > but not all of them (e.g. blf.c and blf.h are copyright Niels Provos). > > Rather than removing the copyright clause per se, it might be better to > just update to the latest versions of these files in an upstream source > (e.g. NetBSD). They've already gone through their source tree and > updated the Berkeley copyrights as appropriate.
I removed the advertising clause from all the BSD-copyrighted files from Berkeley, namely all but */blf.*. I didn't update them from upsteam sources because some don't have clear upstream sources, and an update isn't a trivial operation --- if we need to update, it should be separate operation on all files, not just the ones with advertising clauses. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
