I haven't seen any disagreement that we get rid of the entire third paragraph.
Alex votes that we should get rid of the second paragraph of the header as well, and what Ron posted SEEMS to support that we can, although the wording in that license header might be different enough that it doesn't apply to our case.
Personally, I'm in favor of keeping the second paragraph. It looks to me like the first paragraph just discusses distribution, not liability. I don't really see any NEED to get rid of the second paragraph.
Are there any other thoughts either way on getting rid of the second paragraph?
Martin
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Alex G. mr.nuke.me@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/20/2015 10:54 AM, ron minnich wrote:
Eben Moglen, who ought to know, guided us on the release rules for the Plan 9 GPL release.
Here is what he told us could go in each file: /*
- This file is part of the UCB release of Plan 9. It is subject to the
license
- terms in the LICENSE file found in the top-level directory of this
- distribution and at http://akaros.cs.berkeley.edu/files/Plan9License. No
- part of the UCB release of Plan 9, including this file, may be copied,
- modified, propagated, or distributed except according to the terms
contained
- in the LICENSE file.
*/
+2
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 10:30 AM Patrick Georgi <pgeorgi@google.com mailto:pgeorgi@google.com> wrote: Get (the right set of) lawyers to sign off on that.
You were saying, Patrick?
Alex
-- coreboot mailing list: coreboot@coreboot.org http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot