[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miguel Wooding SF Ten.Union) writes: > Didn't I see a message in this list (perhaps from Joseph Carter or > Adrian Bunk) saying that UCB had revoked this clause? If so, > shouldn't our copyright notice reflect that? Is this, then, a bug in > potato's postgresql package? And how should this be fixed: Can > paragraph 3 just be omitted, and can paragraph 4 be renumbered? > Somehow that seems a bit funny.
If it's copyrighted ONLY by UCB, then you just delete that paragraph, renumber, and move on. UCB granted the world explicit permission to do this. > It appears that this copyright applies only to the regex code in the > backend, not to the remainder of the distribution, and that this is > copyrighted by Henry Spencer. So did UCB's change affect Henry > Spencer's modified version of the earlier UCB code? You might want to check with Henry Spencer to make sure what he thinks about his code. Thomas
