[patch] add test for libc/search hsearch implementation.

J. Johnston jjohnstn@redhat.com
Tue Jul 2 14:47:00 GMT 2002

cgd@broadcom.com wrote:
> At Tue, 02 Jul 2002 17:12:39 -0400, J. Johnston wrote:
> > Thanks Chris.  One problem though.  Your patch has the infamous BSD advertising
> > clause in it.  This clause was dropped in 1999 and we have since scrubbed it out
> > of our sources:  see  ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change
> >
> > As the owner of the code, if you will repost the testcase without that clause, I will
> > check it in.
> >
> > BTW: we have already noticed that clause in some of the new imported search code and it
> > will be scrubbed shortly.
> Either you misunderstand the nature of the letter from Berkeley, or
> you haven't actually looked carefully inside said newly imported
> search code.  8-)

Oops, the latter. :(
> In particular, the part of the "new imported search code" (hsearch*.c)
> which this code tests has an identical license and is also owned by
> me.  I submitted this test code because I thought it was a bit lame to
> have the hsearch code I wrote w/o the corresponding test code, which I
> also wrote.
> Nobody has approached me about 'scrubbing' hsearch*.c.
> Now, if y'all want to talk about that code before doing anything rash,
> well, you know where to contact me.  8-)

My apologies.  Tom had dropped by and told me the same license problem was in the
code.  I hadn't looked at it in any detail before I posted the message and had asked him to look 
at modifying said code.  

With your permission, may we remove the advertising clause from the source code and test case?

-- Jeff J.

More information about the Newlib mailing list