[ 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 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 _______________________________________________ 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"
