Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Someone has pointed out that the following files have the 4-part BSD
> copyright, which includes the advertising clause:
>
> src/backend/port/darwin/system.c
> src/backend/port/dynloader/freebsd.c
> src/backend/port/dynloader/openbsd.c
> src/backend/port/dynloader/netbsd.c
> src/backend/utils/mb/wstrcmp.c
> src/backend/utils/mb/wstrncmp.c
> src/port/strtoul.c
> src/port/getopt.c
> src/port/getopt_long.c
> src/port/inet_aton.c
> src/port/strtol.c
> src/port/snprintf.c
> contrib/pgcrypto/blf.c
> contrib/pgcrypto/blf.h
>
> Because Berkeley has said the advertising clause is to be
> ignored/removed, should we remove it from our files too?
>
I don't think we *need* to remove it, but I agree we should remove it
for the sake of clarity. Note that the UC declaration only applies to
code that is copyright UC Berkeley -- which is most of the above files,
but not all of them (e.g. blf.c and blf.h are copyright Niels Provos).
Rather than removing the copyright clause per se, it might be better to
just update to the latest versions of these files in an upstream source
(e.g. NetBSD). They've already gone through their source tree and
updated the Berkeley copyrights as appropriate.
-Neil