Re: NetBSD clause ?= UCB clause

[Joel Sherrill <joel dot sherrill at OARcorp dot 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