[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: strcat()->strncat() safety changes (ITS#518)

At 09:45 PM 4/27/00 GMT, nalin@redhat.com wrote:
>On Thu, Apr 27, 2000 at 04:38:06PM -0500, Randy Kunkee wrote:
>> I looked at some of this patch file.  It is noteable at the top that
>> you have a RedHat copyright -- I don't know if it would make it incompatable
>> for contribution back to the OpenLDAP codebase, but it seems for minor changes
>> like those that such a copyright is unfounded.
>I agree completely.

Per my previous note, an explicit copyright notice is generally better
than no copyright notice at all.  Depending on the submission,
we may require an explicit notice.  We generally do not require
explicit notices on simple patches.  I will interact with submitters
and committers as needed.

>I was told by Ben via email that some sort of permission
>statement would need to be added, so I attached the usual text we use when
>it needs to be there.  The only examples I could find on the web site were
>all prefaced with a note that the developer team aren't lawyers.  If there's
>a specific license (or none) you'd prefer, I'd be happy to change it.  (The
>version of the patch in the latest source package in Raw Hide has no such
>statement, actually;  we usually don't bother with them for patches.)

I have no issue with the copyright you attached, I believe it to
be compatible with our release and devel licenses.  I generally
prefer simple notices, such as those on the our website.