This is the mail archive of the
newlib@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: NetBSD clause ?= UCB clause
- From: Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot com>
- To: "J. Johnston" <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>, newlib at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 11:38:26 -0500
- Subject: Re: NetBSD clause ?= UCB clause
- Organization: OAR Corporation
- References: <3DA308FC.49065C77@OARcorp.com>
()*&(&*% hit send )(**&^(*Y
Joel Sherrill wrote:
>
> Jeff,
>
> Unfortunately, I don't think that one can remove the NetBSD clause.
> I found this post in the Cygwin list
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2002-q1/msg00090.html
Which includes this from From: Mark Bradshaw <bradshaw at staff dot
crosswalk dot com>
to Corinna Vinschen <cygwin-patches at cygwin dot com>.
> "Bad news. The stuff you took from OpenBSD is licensed under the BSD
> w/advertising clause. And, since it is owned by Klaus Klein and/or "The
> NetBSD Foundation" it does NOT fall under the blanket changeover (from
> w/advert clause to NO advert clause) issued by the UCalBerkeley folks.
So I think the UCB change to their clause doesn't apply to NetBSD which
is in-line with RMS' comments on the advertisement clause.
Personally I am unwilling to impost the advert clause on all ARM-*
newlib targets just for memcpy. Does newlib have other advert clauses
on code this general? I vaguely recall some that are very target
specific but not across all platforms on a CPU like this.
--joel