sysv_ipc.c: merge copyright assignment to the NetBSD Foundation

[pfg]

Summary

Looking at the history of the original file in NetBSD, it is possible to
merge the copyright assignment that was made to The NetBSD Foundation.
This doesn't change anything as the license is still under 4-clause BSD
license but at a later time the NetBSD Foundation dropped Clauses 3 and 4
so this would help follow that change in the future.

This is, of course, taken from NetBSD CVS:
http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/kern/sysv_ipc.c.diff?r1=1.9&r2=1.14&only_with_tag=MAIN

Although there is an intermediate change that doesn't apply to us (CVS 1.12).

FWIW, I also looked at sysv_shm.c, but relicensing that would be much more
complex as they rewrote most of the code.

[rgrimes]

Upon closer examination of this there are some issues, it alters a license post fact of copyrights asserted by some, and changes the clause in the license from Author to NetBSD, which effects the since of the copyright. I really wish the playing with Copyrights and Licenses would stop, this is a good example, of a well meant change, causing an ugly problem. For examle, the disclaimer is now in the name NetBSD, so what happened to the disclaim asserted by nCircle Network, and Robert Watson?

[pfg]

In D13706#411735, @rgrimes wrote:

Upon closer examination of this there are some issues, it alters a license post fact of copyrights asserted by some, and changes the clause in the license from Author to NetBSD, which effects the since of the copyright. I really wish the playing with Copyrights and Licenses would stop, this is a good example, of a well meant change, causing an ugly problem. For examle, the disclaimer is now in the name NetBSD, so what happened to the disclaim asserted by nCircle Network, and Robert Watson?

Charles Hannum authorized the changes to the NetBSD team. The fact that the change has to be approved by Robert Watson and nCircle Network is effectively what stopped the change from being committed.

This is not "playing with the copyrghts and licences": there are real advantages for downstream distributors from having less complexity in the licensing terms. Going through the proper revision, in particular when the developers are alive and available, is the responsible thing to do and shall continue.

Also, given that sufficient time has elapsed and Robert seems to not have enough interest in it, I will abandon the change (it can surely be revived diectly by the affected Copyright holders if they wish).

[rwatson]

Sorry for having missed this review request previously.

Changing the disclaimer terms to protect the NetBSD foundation but not other authors seems a pretty unacceptable change.

Switching to a standard form of the BSD license rather than the NetBSD Foundation's customised license would be OK by me, but I'm not a copyright holder -- you need nCircle's permission for that.

[rgrimes]

pfg I think you miss understood, and upon looking I was not clear, it is not you that I am unhappy with about "playing with copyrights and licenses", it is NetBSD and possibly Charles Hannum who as Robert points out modified a license without ALL authors approval. I would be very upset if someone disturbed my disclaimer in this manner.

[pfg]

In D13706#411805, @rgrimes wrote:

pfg I think you miss understood, and upon looking I was not clear, it is not you that I am unhappy with about "playing with copyrights and licenses", it is NetBSD and possibly Charles Hannum who as Robert points out modified a license without ALL authors approval. I would be very upset if someone disturbed my disclaimer in this manner.

Oh ... I see ... Hannum replaced Peyerl's name with TNF but instead added himself. Ugly move ... I indeed misunderstood it.

It's been a long time since I looked at these license changes and at least this one makes no sense.
Fortunately since then I moved to more interesting things ;). Sorry for the mess up.