Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 23:43:19 +0000 From: Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk> To: Joshua Isom <jrisom@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why not simplify Copyright at boot/dmesg? Message-ID: <51295417.1070102@cran.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <51294E12.3040906@gmail.com> References: <qviesabrhynrngzbhtbv@koui> <20130223171150.eeb88206.freebsd@edvax.de> <20130223183234.cf559a552f31f9b19cf67bd6@sohara.org> <5129140B.6050106@gmail.com> <512935B7.7070008@gmail.com> <51293B1E.8010103@gmail.com> <20130223222337.f68865d83a3051c429b81dd1@sohara.org> <51294E12.3040906@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 23/02/2013 23:17, Joshua Isom wrote: > That also ties in with NIH syndrome. Gnu does that a lot just to make > sure they can change to GPLv4 without problems, while Linux is still > GPLv2. It's also not just Berkeley, but other people and > organizations hold copyrights. From a quick glance, netatalk is by > the University of Michigan. Mounting a cd using cd9660, which is > still listed as Berkeley, is probably so tested and proven by now, > that there would be no benefit to rewriting it other than to change > the copyright. Other open source projects require contributors to sign copyright assignment agreements so all the code is under a single owner. -- Bruce Cran
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51295417.1070102>