> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:27:02 -0800
> From: Stephen Hahn <sch at eng.sun.com>
>
> * Casper.Dik at Sun.COM <Casper.Dik at Sun.COM> [2007-02-15 09:54]:
> >
> > >* Peter Memishian <peter.memishian at sun.com> [2007-02-14 22:28]:
> > >> It's tragic enough that /etc/nsswitch.conf has a 25 line
> > >> CDDL+copyright at the top.
> > >
> > > I asked Legal for a "shorter form" for configuration files (and files
> > > that go over the wire a lot, like CSS and XML for opensolaris.org).
> > > I'll start a new thread later today (-code) and we can examine the
> > > shorter block and its applicability.
> >
> > It's kinda strange they even need copyright headers.
>
> I'll reply to this one--it's short.
>
> Jim Carlson and others know the full story of the CDDL block
> insertion; I wasn't working on OpenSolaris then. I asked for the
> shorter block because I thought putting the block on the various web
> pages and supporting files on opensolaris.org was ridiculously
> wasteful of bandwidth.
>
> If you would like us to revisit the presence of any CDDL license block
> on specific files, that's a reasonable request. (Unfortunately, I
> don't think it's important enough for the I-team to tackle
> immediately, either technically or in terms of engaging a new Legal
> evaluation.) I would suggest filing bugs and assigning them to me, so
> we can at least track the worst cases. (Apologies for making that a
> Bugster-requiring operation.)
Is there any requirement that the build retain the CDDL block for
configuration files? Just like compilation loses the copyright,
is there any reason that the build procedures can't sed out the CDDL
in configuration files?
-JZ
