Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-26 Thread Rod Taylor
On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 08:34, Rod Taylor wrote: I think maybe the simplest thing is for me to prepare a patch that rips that code out and replaces it with a (slightly simpler - less umask hacking required, I think) piece of code that I will write. The FreeBSD folks sorted it out for us.

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-20 Thread Andrew Dunstan
This whole thing is starting to make my head hurt. There has been more effort spent over this license issue than I would have spent if I hadn't taken the shortcut of using the FreeBSD code. I think maybe the simplest thing is for me to prepare a patch that rips that code out and replaces it

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-20 Thread Rod Taylor
I think maybe the simplest thing is for me to prepare a patch that rips that code out and replaces it with a (slightly simpler - less umask hacking required, I think) piece of code that I will write. The FreeBSD folks sorted it out for us. Everyones names should be in the copyright for the

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-20 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Rod Taylor wrote: I think maybe the simplest thing is for me to prepare a patch that rips that code out and replaces it with a (slightly simpler - less umask hacking required, I think) piece of code that I will write. The FreeBSD folks sorted it out for us. Everyones names should be in

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-20 Thread Bruce Momjian
Rod Taylor wrote: I think maybe the simplest thing is for me to prepare a patch that rips that code out and replaces it with a (slightly simpler - less umask hacking required, I think) piece of code that I will write. The FreeBSD folks sorted it out for us. Everyones names should be

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-20 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Andrew Dunstan wrote: trollOf course, now that SCO is claiming ownership of BSD code . /troll Interesting thread that ... last I read on the FreeBSD lists was speculation that they would be going after ppl like Cisco (re: TCP/IP Networking Code) since there really is

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-20 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Based on the below wouldn't they also have to go after Microsoft? Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Andrew Dunstan wrote: trollOf course, now that SCO is claiming ownership of BSD code . /troll Interesting thread that ... last I read on the FreeBSD lists was speculation

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-20 Thread Marc G. Fournier
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Based on the below wouldn't they also have to go after Microsoft? Depends ... does MicroSoft use BSD TCP/IP, or did they write their own? I know that Linux is not using BSD TCP/IP (or, at least, they didn't in their first 3 incarnations of the stack)

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-20 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Based on the below wouldn't they also have to go after Microsoft? Depends ... does MicroSoft use BSD TCP/IP, or did they write their own? I know that Linux is not using BSD TCP/IP (or, at least, they didn't in their

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-20 Thread Larry Rosenman
--On Thursday, November 20, 2003 16:00:44 -0400 Marc G. Fournier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Based on the below wouldn't they also have to go after Microsoft? Depends ... does MicroSoft use BSD TCP/IP, or did they write their own? I know that Linux is

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-20 Thread Joshua D. Drake
Hello, My understanding is that they use the BSD stack (at least as the basis) for TCP/IP. Windows that is. J Marc G. Fournier wrote: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote: Based on the below wouldn't they also have to go after Microsoft? Depends ... does MicroSoft use BSD

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-19 Thread Alexander Kabaev
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 14:48:08 -0500 Rod Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The PostgreSQL group has recently had a patch submitted with a snippet of code from FreeBSDs src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c?annotate=1.27 This appears to be an original

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-19 Thread Erik Trulsson
On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 02:48:08PM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote: The PostgreSQL group has recently had a patch submitted with a snippet of code from FreeBSDs src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c?annotate=1.27 Is this intentionally under the 4 clause

Re: [HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-18 Thread Simon L. Nielsen
On 2003.11.17 14:48:08 -0500, Rod Taylor wrote: The PostgreSQL group has recently had a patch submitted with a snippet of code from FreeBSDs src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c?annotate=1.27 Is this intentionally under the 4 clause license or

[HACKERS] 4 Clause license?

2003-11-17 Thread Rod Taylor
The PostgreSQL group has recently had a patch submitted with a snippet of code from FreeBSDs src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c. http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/bin/mkdir/mkdir.c?annotate=1.27 Is this intentionally under the 4 clause license or does the copyright from the website (2 clause) applied