Two copyright notices missing in 6.20?

Two copyright notices missing in 6.20?

[Carlos O'Donell]

Alejandro,

I did a quick audit through 6.20 since we're looking to ship an update in Fedora.

- Linus Torvalds — setreuid.2
- Xavier Leroy — pthread_once.3

At the top level the following people have had their notices removed but I didn't
see them acknowledge that removal on the mailing list, or in your final audit here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/unavr5u2uynqfvj7iymgvsptq4k5s5b4ex7havl36zro4bbua4@fqpjhnsuu5ln/

Should we add these back?

I can only assume the Michael Kerrisk consented, but I don't think you explicitly
mentioned this in any email I read with a Message-id. Would you do so for the record?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Two copyright notices missing in 6.20?

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3611 bytes --]

Hi Carlos, Xavier,

> Date: 2026-11-02 11:24:25-0500
> From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
>
> Alejandro,
> 
> I did a quick audit through 6.20 since we're looking to ship an update in Fedora.
> 
> - Xavier Leroy — pthread_once.3

Xavier asked me to remove his name from the pages when I told him about
picking the old pthread_*() pages from glibc and Debian.

	commit 13151ec525a21101dabb2528784bf9a86b1280f4
	Author: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
	Date:   2023-10-03 16:57:29 +0200

	    pthread_*.3: Remove AUTHOR section; add copyright; adapt TH
	    
	    Xavier asked that his name be removed from the AUTHOR section, and since
	    we don't use that section in this project, we can just wipe it.
	    
	    Add copyright notices to the pages, with Xavier as the original author,
	    and me, who will maintain them from now on.  Xavier ACKed the
	    Linux-man-pages-copyleft license.
	    
	    Adapt the TH line:
	    
	    -  Specify the date as (date).
	    -  Specify the project name in the 4th arg.
	    -  The first arg, the page name, must be the same as the file name.
	    
	    Suggested-by: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
	    Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>

Here's a quote from an email from Xavier:

| Date: Sun, 21 May 2023 11:40:12 +0200
| From: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
| Message-ID: <CAH=h3gFakgz3xcH63h-5nO0L9LuSy2Xr5b2riwpJ1o4L3DzuRg@mail.gmail.com>
|
| To answer your question:
| - I don't think it's a good idea to take these man pages "as is" and drop
| them in the man-pages project, because they are probably obsolete and
| incomplete.
| - However, if you or others would like to use these man pages as a starting
| point for a comprehensive, up-to-date and maintained documentation for
| POSIX Threads functions in Linux, you're most welcome.
| - In both cases, I'd like my name and e-mail address to be removed from the
| man pages, as I no longer support them.

And a follop-up email:

| Date: Sun, 21 May 2023 19:29:19 +0200
| From: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
| Message-ID: <CAH=h3gF3F-tOq6-zYKf63_JhR3tRZ9NFMiTpX2YEjhhjDGr7Hw@mail.gmail.com>
|
| I'm happy with the man-pages-copyleft  license.  If you need me to write a
| more formal message for the licensing of these pages, let me know.
| 
| No other requests than 1- removing my name, and 2- updating the pages as
| much as you and others can.

I'm not sure why I kept his name in the copyright notices back then.
I thought I had asked him about it, but I can't find that discussion.

Anyway, I've CCed Xavier now.  Xavier, are you okay with your copyright
notices being transformed to a generic one that says this?:

	Copyright, the authors of the Linux man-pages project

> - Linus Torvalds — setreuid.2

Seems a mistake.  Fixed now.  Thanks!

> At the top level the following people have had their notices removed but I didn't
> see them acknowledge that removal on the mailing list, or in your final audit here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/unavr5u2uynqfvj7iymgvsptq4k5s5b4ex7havl36zro4bbua4@fqpjhnsuu5ln/
> 
> Should we add these back?
> 
> I can only assume the Michael Kerrisk consented,

He didn't.  We talked in person, and he asked his notices to be
restored, which I believe I did.

	$ grep -rn Copyright.*Kerrisk | wc -l 
	1224

Did I miss any?

> but I don't think you explicitly
> mentioned this in any email I read with a Message-id. Would you do so for the record?


Have a lovely night!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Two copyright notices missing in 6.20?

[Michal Schorm]

Hi,

There's a typo (Linus / Linux) in the commit restoring Linus' notice:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/commit/?id=034b29a5f2686f647d12e75bf6da4bd30f97db0d



Michal

--

Michal Schorm
Senior Software Engineer
Databases Team
Red Hat

--

On Tue, Nov 3, 2026 at 12:22 AM Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Carlos, Xavier,
>
> > Date: 2026-11-02 11:24:25-0500
> > From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> >
> > Alejandro,
> >
> > I did a quick audit through 6.20 since we're looking to ship an update in Fedora.
> >
> > - Xavier Leroy — pthread_once.3
>
> Xavier asked me to remove his name from the pages when I told him about
> picking the old pthread_*() pages from glibc and Debian.
>
>         commit 13151ec525a21101dabb2528784bf9a86b1280f4
>         Author: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
>         Date:   2023-10-03 16:57:29 +0200
>
>             pthread_*.3: Remove AUTHOR section; add copyright; adapt TH
>
>             Xavier asked that his name be removed from the AUTHOR section, and since
>             we don't use that section in this project, we can just wipe it.
>
>             Add copyright notices to the pages, with Xavier as the original author,
>             and me, who will maintain them from now on.  Xavier ACKed the
>             Linux-man-pages-copyleft license.
>
>             Adapt the TH line:
>
>             -  Specify the date as (date).
>             -  Specify the project name in the 4th arg.
>             -  The first arg, the page name, must be the same as the file name.
>
>             Suggested-by: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
>             Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
>
> Here's a quote from an email from Xavier:
>
> | Date: Sun, 21 May 2023 11:40:12 +0200
> | From: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
> | Message-ID: <CAH=h3gFakgz3xcH63h-5nO0L9LuSy2Xr5b2riwpJ1o4L3DzuRg@mail.gmail.com>
> |
> | To answer your question:
> | - I don't think it's a good idea to take these man pages "as is" and drop
> | them in the man-pages project, because they are probably obsolete and
> | incomplete.
> | - However, if you or others would like to use these man pages as a starting
> | point for a comprehensive, up-to-date and maintained documentation for
> | POSIX Threads functions in Linux, you're most welcome.
> | - In both cases, I'd like my name and e-mail address to be removed from the
> | man pages, as I no longer support them.
>
> And a follop-up email:
>
> | Date: Sun, 21 May 2023 19:29:19 +0200
> | From: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
> | Message-ID: <CAH=h3gF3F-tOq6-zYKf63_JhR3tRZ9NFMiTpX2YEjhhjDGr7Hw@mail.gmail.com>
> |
> | I'm happy with the man-pages-copyleft  license.  If you need me to write a
> | more formal message for the licensing of these pages, let me know.
> |
> | No other requests than 1- removing my name, and 2- updating the pages as
> | much as you and others can.
>
> I'm not sure why I kept his name in the copyright notices back then.
> I thought I had asked him about it, but I can't find that discussion.
>
> Anyway, I've CCed Xavier now.  Xavier, are you okay with your copyright
> notices being transformed to a generic one that says this?:
>
>         Copyright, the authors of the Linux man-pages project
>
> > - Linus Torvalds — setreuid.2
>
> Seems a mistake.  Fixed now.  Thanks!
>
> > At the top level the following people have had their notices removed but I didn't
> > see them acknowledge that removal on the mailing list, or in your final audit here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/unavr5u2uynqfvj7iymgvsptq4k5s5b4ex7havl36zro4bbua4@fqpjhnsuu5ln/
> >
> > Should we add these back?
> >
> > I can only assume the Michael Kerrisk consented,
>
> He didn't.  We talked in person, and he asked his notices to be
> restored, which I believe I did.
>
>         $ grep -rn Copyright.*Kerrisk | wc -l
>         1224
>
> Did I miss any?
>
> > but I don't think you explicitly
> > mentioned this in any email I read with a Message-id. Would you do so for the record?
>
>
> Have a lovely night!
> Alex
>
> --
> <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>

Re: Two copyright notices missing in 6.20?

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4692 bytes --]

Hi Michal,

> Date: 2026-11-03 08:10:52+0100
> From: Michal Schorm <mschorm@redhat.com>
>
> Hi,
> 
> There's a typo (Linus / Linux) in the commit restoring Linus' notice:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/commit/?id=034b29a5f2686f647d12e75bf6da4bd30f97db0d

lol, Thanks!  Fixed.


Have a lovely day!
Alex

> 
> 
> 
> Michal
> 
> --
> 
> Michal Schorm
> Senior Software Engineer
> Databases Team
> Red Hat
> 
> --
> 
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2026 at 12:22 AM Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Carlos, Xavier,
> >
> > > Date: 2026-11-02 11:24:25-0500
> > > From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > Alejandro,
> > >
> > > I did a quick audit through 6.20 since we're looking to ship an update in Fedora.
> > >
> > > - Xavier Leroy — pthread_once.3
> >
> > Xavier asked me to remove his name from the pages when I told him about
> > picking the old pthread_*() pages from glibc and Debian.
> >
> >         commit 13151ec525a21101dabb2528784bf9a86b1280f4
> >         Author: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> >         Date:   2023-10-03 16:57:29 +0200
> >
> >             pthread_*.3: Remove AUTHOR section; add copyright; adapt TH
> >
> >             Xavier asked that his name be removed from the AUTHOR section, and since
> >             we don't use that section in this project, we can just wipe it.
> >
> >             Add copyright notices to the pages, with Xavier as the original author,
> >             and me, who will maintain them from now on.  Xavier ACKed the
> >             Linux-man-pages-copyleft license.
> >
> >             Adapt the TH line:
> >
> >             -  Specify the date as (date).
> >             -  Specify the project name in the 4th arg.
> >             -  The first arg, the page name, must be the same as the file name.
> >
> >             Suggested-by: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
> >             Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> >
> > Here's a quote from an email from Xavier:
> >
> > | Date: Sun, 21 May 2023 11:40:12 +0200
> > | From: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
> > | Message-ID: <CAH=h3gFakgz3xcH63h-5nO0L9LuSy2Xr5b2riwpJ1o4L3DzuRg@mail.gmail.com>
> > |
> > | To answer your question:
> > | - I don't think it's a good idea to take these man pages "as is" and drop
> > | them in the man-pages project, because they are probably obsolete and
> > | incomplete.
> > | - However, if you or others would like to use these man pages as a starting
> > | point for a comprehensive, up-to-date and maintained documentation for
> > | POSIX Threads functions in Linux, you're most welcome.
> > | - In both cases, I'd like my name and e-mail address to be removed from the
> > | man pages, as I no longer support them.
> >
> > And a follop-up email:
> >
> > | Date: Sun, 21 May 2023 19:29:19 +0200
> > | From: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
> > | Message-ID: <CAH=h3gF3F-tOq6-zYKf63_JhR3tRZ9NFMiTpX2YEjhhjDGr7Hw@mail.gmail.com>
> > |
> > | I'm happy with the man-pages-copyleft  license.  If you need me to write a
> > | more formal message for the licensing of these pages, let me know.
> > |
> > | No other requests than 1- removing my name, and 2- updating the pages as
> > | much as you and others can.
> >
> > I'm not sure why I kept his name in the copyright notices back then.
> > I thought I had asked him about it, but I can't find that discussion.
> >
> > Anyway, I've CCed Xavier now.  Xavier, are you okay with your copyright
> > notices being transformed to a generic one that says this?:
> >
> >         Copyright, the authors of the Linux man-pages project
> >
> > > - Linus Torvalds — setreuid.2
> >
> > Seems a mistake.  Fixed now.  Thanks!
> >
> > > At the top level the following people have had their notices removed but I didn't
> > > see them acknowledge that removal on the mailing list, or in your final audit here:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/unavr5u2uynqfvj7iymgvsptq4k5s5b4ex7havl36zro4bbua4@fqpjhnsuu5ln/
> > >
> > > Should we add these back?
> > >
> > > I can only assume the Michael Kerrisk consented,
> >
> > He didn't.  We talked in person, and he asked his notices to be
> > restored, which I believe I did.
> >
> >         $ grep -rn Copyright.*Kerrisk | wc -l
> >         1224
> >
> > Did I miss any?
> >
> > > but I don't think you explicitly
> > > mentioned this in any email I read with a Message-id. Would you do so for the record?
> >
> >
> > Have a lovely night!
> > Alex
> >
> > --
> > <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
> 
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Two copyright notices missing in 6.20?

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 11/2/26 6:13 PM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Carlos, Xavier,
> 
>> Date: 2026-11-02 11:24:25-0500
>> From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
>>
>> Alejandro,
>>
>> I did a quick audit through 6.20 since we're looking to ship an update in Fedora.
>>
>> - Xavier Leroy — pthread_once.3
> 
> Xavier asked me to remove his name from the pages when I told him about
> picking the old pthread_*() pages from glibc and Debian.
> 
> 	commit 13151ec525a21101dabb2528784bf9a86b1280f4
> 	Author: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> 	Date:   2023-10-03 16:57:29 +0200
> 
> 	    pthread_*.3: Remove AUTHOR section; add copyright; adapt TH
> 	
> 	    Xavier asked that his name be removed from the AUTHOR section, and since
> 	    we don't use that section in this project, we can just wipe it.
> 	
> 	    Add copyright notices to the pages, with Xavier as the original author,
> 	    and me, who will maintain them from now on.  Xavier ACKed the
> 	    Linux-man-pages-copyleft license.
> 	
> 	    Adapt the TH line:
> 	
> 	    -  Specify the date as (date).
> 	    -  Specify the project name in the 4th arg.
> 	    -  The first arg, the page name, must be the same as the file name.
> 	
> 	    Suggested-by: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
> 	    Signed-off-by: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
> 
> Here's a quote from an email from Xavier:
> 
> | Date: Sun, 21 May 2023 11:40:12 +0200
> | From: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
> | Message-ID: <CAH=h3gFakgz3xcH63h-5nO0L9LuSy2Xr5b2riwpJ1o4L3DzuRg@mail.gmail.com>
> |
> | To answer your question:
> | - I don't think it's a good idea to take these man pages "as is" and drop
> | them in the man-pages project, because they are probably obsolete and
> | incomplete.
> | - However, if you or others would like to use these man pages as a starting
> | point for a comprehensive, up-to-date and maintained documentation for
> | POSIX Threads functions in Linux, you're most welcome.
> | - In both cases, I'd like my name and e-mail address to be removed from the
> | man pages, as I no longer support them.
> 
> And a follop-up email:
> 
> | Date: Sun, 21 May 2023 19:29:19 +0200
> | From: Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr>
> | Message-ID: <CAH=h3gF3F-tOq6-zYKf63_JhR3tRZ9NFMiTpX2YEjhhjDGr7Hw@mail.gmail.com>
> |
> | I'm happy with the man-pages-copyleft  license.  If you need me to write a
> | more formal message for the licensing of these pages, let me know.
> |
> | No other requests than 1- removing my name, and 2- updating the pages as
> | much as you and others can.
> 
> I'm not sure why I kept his name in the copyright notices back then.
> I thought I had asked him about it, but I can't find that discussion.

Yeah, neither could I, thanks for including Xavier.

> 
> Anyway, I've CCed Xavier now.  Xavier, are you okay with your copyright
> notices being transformed to a generic one that says this?:
> 
> 	Copyright, the authors of the Linux man-pages project
> 
>> - Linus Torvalds — setreuid.2
> 
> Seems a mistake.  Fixed now.  Thanks!

Perfect. Thank you!

>> At the top level the following people have had their notices removed but I didn't
>> see them acknowledge that removal on the mailing list, or in your final audit here:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-man/unavr5u2uynqfvj7iymgvsptq4k5s5b4ex7havl36zro4bbua4@fqpjhnsuu5ln/
>>
>> Should we add these back?
>>
>> I can only assume the Michael Kerrisk consented,
> 
> He didn't.  We talked in person, and he asked his notices to be
> restored, which I believe I did.
> 
> 	$ grep -rn Copyright.*Kerrisk | wc -l
> 	1224
> 
> Did I miss any?

Yes, 3, but I will also note the remaining 4 topics that came from the audit.

(1) Copyright statements for Michael Kerrisk

sync.2:
\" Copyright (c) 1992 Drew Eckhardt (drew@cs.colorado.edu), March 28, 1992
.\" and Copyright (c) 2011 Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>

select.2:
.\" This manpage is copyright (C) 1992 Drew Eckhardt,
.\"     copyright (C) 1995 Michael Shields,
.\"     copyright (C) 2001 Paul Sheer,
.\"     copyright (C) 2006, 2019 Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>

epoll_ctl.2:
.\"  Copyright (C) 2003  Davide Libenzi
.\"  Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
.\" and Copyright 2009, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Michael Kerrisk <tk.manpages@gmail.com>

May you please add these 3 back for Michael?

(2) Removal of Linux Foundation copyright statements

There were ~116 of Linux Foundation copyright notices present that were removed.

e.g.
a1eaacb1a5 man7/signal.7     (Alejandro Colomar    2022-11-09 16:36:36 +0100    1) '\" t
^fea681daf man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2004-11-03 13:51:07 +0000    2) .\" Copyright (c) 1993 by Thomas Koenig (ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de)
f527d6fe30 man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2020-11-12 16:36:34 +0100    3) .\" and Copyright (c) 2002, 2006, 2020 by Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
743bc3957a man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2008-07-04 14:36:28 +0000    4) .\" and Copyright (c) 2008 Linux Foundation, written by Michael Kerrisk
743bc3957a man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2008-07-04 14:36:28 +0000    5) .\"     <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>

a1eaacb1a5 man7/signal.7     (Alejandro Colomar    2022-11-09 16:36:36 +0100    1) '\" t
73ec1f03be man/man7/signal.7 (Alejandro Colomar    2025-11-21 01:08:05 +0100    2) .\" Copyright 1993, Thomas Koenig <ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
73ec1f03be man/man7/signal.7 (Alejandro Colomar    2025-11-21 01:08:05 +0100    3) .\" Copyright 2002-2020, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
f99f884ddb man/man7/signal.7 (Alejandro Colomar    2025-05-17 15:18:26 +0200    4) .\" Copyright, the authors of the Linux man-pages project
^fea681daf man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2004-11-03 13:51:07 +0000    5) .\"

Did the project get permission from the foundation for the removal?

(3) Collapsed years

Michael's copyright status collapsed from 2002, 2006, 20220 to 2002-2020.

Were additional contributions made in the intervening years?

If there were no such contributions then the years should be kept distinct.

Only ranges like 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 etc. should be collapsed into a contiguous range e.g. 2002-2005.

May you please correct the collapsed ranges?

(4) SPDX identifiers

With Linus' clause restored, the SPDX identifier for setreuid.2 is not correct.

The original text read:
.\" Portions extracted from linux/kernel/sys.c:
.\"             Copyright (C) 1991, 1992  Linus Torvalds
.\"             May be distributed under the GNU General Public License

Which makes this SPDX identifier incorrect:
.\" SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-4-Clause-UC

Should include GPL?

Likewise bind.2.

Likewise connect.2.

Likewise iopl.2 implied GPL.

Likewise subpage_prot.2 implied GPL.

Likewise signbit.3, significand.3, and memcpy.3 are GFDL derivatives.
- These should be rewritten from scratch or GFDL front-matter invariant requirements apply.

May you please update 5 pages with GPL notices?

The man-pages project should not copy from the glibc manual
due to the GFDL front-matter invariant requirements, and that
GFDL cannot be combined with GPL.

(5) Uncertain provenance

Restore the des_crypt.3 uncertain provenance header:

.\" However, the above header line suggests that this file in fact is
.\" Copyright Sun Microsystems, Inc (and is provided for unrestricted use,
.\" see other Sun RPC sources).

Or conclusively resolve the provenance issue.

I'd leave the SPDX-header as-is because Eric's statement can be seen as authoritative
over the uncertain provenance.

Likewise login.3 uncertain GFDL.

Likewise remove.3 which should include copyright notices from unlink.2 as a derived work.

May we please add back the uncertain text notes?

Were any of these uncertain notices resolved?

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: Two copyright notices missing in 6.20?

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5930 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

> Date: 2026-11-03 09:55:31-0500
> From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
>
[...]
> > Did I miss any?
> 
> Yes, 3, but I will also note the remaining 4 topics that came from the audit.
> 
> (1) Copyright statements for Michael Kerrisk
> 
> sync.2:
> \" Copyright (c) 1992 Drew Eckhardt (drew@cs.colorado.edu), March 28, 1992
> .\" and Copyright (c) 2011 Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
> 
> select.2:
> .\" This manpage is copyright (C) 1992 Drew Eckhardt,
> .\"     copyright (C) 1995 Michael Shields,
> .\"     copyright (C) 2001 Paul Sheer,
> .\"     copyright (C) 2006, 2019 Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
> 
> epoll_ctl.2:
> .\"  Copyright (C) 2003  Davide Libenzi
> .\"  Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
> .\" and Copyright 2009, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Michael Kerrisk <tk.manpages@gmail.com>
> 
> May you please add these 3 back for Michael?

Sure; thanks!  Will do tonight.

> (2) Removal of Linux Foundation copyright statements
> 
> There were ~116 of Linux Foundation copyright notices present that were removed.

I'm waiting for them to approve it formally.  I expect they will.

> e.g.
> a1eaacb1a5 man7/signal.7     (Alejandro Colomar    2022-11-09 16:36:36 +0100    1) '\" t
> ^fea681daf man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2004-11-03 13:51:07 +0000    2) .\" Copyright (c) 1993 by Thomas Koenig (ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de)
> f527d6fe30 man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2020-11-12 16:36:34 +0100    3) .\" and Copyright (c) 2002, 2006, 2020 by Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
> 743bc3957a man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2008-07-04 14:36:28 +0000    4) .\" and Copyright (c) 2008 Linux Foundation, written by Michael Kerrisk
> 743bc3957a man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2008-07-04 14:36:28 +0000    5) .\"     <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
> 
> a1eaacb1a5 man7/signal.7     (Alejandro Colomar    2022-11-09 16:36:36 +0100    1) '\" t
> 73ec1f03be man/man7/signal.7 (Alejandro Colomar    2025-11-21 01:08:05 +0100    2) .\" Copyright 1993, Thomas Koenig <ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
> 73ec1f03be man/man7/signal.7 (Alejandro Colomar    2025-11-21 01:08:05 +0100    3) .\" Copyright 2002-2020, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
> f99f884ddb man/man7/signal.7 (Alejandro Colomar    2025-05-17 15:18:26 +0200    4) .\" Copyright, the authors of the Linux man-pages project
> ^fea681daf man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2004-11-03 13:51:07 +0000    5) .\"
> 
> Did the project get permission from the foundation for the removal?

Not yet.

> (3) Collapsed years
> 
> Michael's copyright status collapsed from 2002, 2006, 20220 to 2002-2020.
> 
> Were additional contributions made in the intervening years?

I don't know.  I suspect there are, even though he probably didn't
consider them worthy of copyright.

> If there were no such contributions then the years should be kept distinct.

I think I disagree.  The copyright dates are only meaningful as a start
and an end.  One could also argue that 2005 means 2005-01..2005-12, but
there might have been contributions only in 2005-07.  Is it legally
meaningful to say 2002, 2004 in a way that 2002-07, 2002-09, 2004-05
isn't?  And is it legally meaningful to say 2002-2004 instead of any of
the above?

> 
> Only ranges like 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 etc. should be collapsed into a contiguous range e.g. 2002-2005.
> 
> May you please correct the collapsed ranges?

I'd really like to avoid this.

> (4) SPDX identifiers
> 
> With Linus' clause restored, the SPDX identifier for setreuid.2 is not correct.
> 
> The original text read:
> .\" Portions extracted from linux/kernel/sys.c:
> .\"             Copyright (C) 1991, 1992  Linus Torvalds
> .\"             May be distributed under the GNU General Public License
> 
> Which makes this SPDX identifier incorrect:
> .\" SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-4-Clause-UC
> 
> Should include GPL?

Indeed.

> Likewise bind.2.
> 
> Likewise connect.2.
> 
> Likewise iopl.2 implied GPL.
> 
> Likewise subpage_prot.2 implied GPL.
> 
> May you please update 5 pages with GPL notices?

Thanks!  I'll GPL these files tonight.

> 
> Likewise signbit.3, significand.3, and memcpy.3 are GFDL derivatives.
> - These should be rewritten from scratch or GFDL front-matter invariant requirements apply.

Ouch!  Indeed.

> 
> The man-pages project should not copy from the glibc manual
> due to the GFDL front-matter invariant requirements, and that
> GFDL cannot be combined with GPL.

Agree.  I'll try to rewrite them from scratch.

memcpy(3) will be easier, because I know the page very well (and I've
already rewritten most of it from scratch; I guess the only remnants are
in CAVEATS).  The others, I'll need to learn about them before
rewriting.  I'll use the BSD pages to learn about these APIs.

> (5) Uncertain provenance
> 
> Restore the des_crypt.3 uncertain provenance header:
> 
> .\" However, the above header line suggests that this file in fact is
> .\" Copyright Sun Microsystems, Inc (and is provided for unrestricted use,
> .\" see other Sun RPC sources).
> 
> Or conclusively resolve the provenance issue.
> 
> I'd leave the SPDX-header as-is because Eric's statement can be seen as authoritative
> over the uncertain provenance.
> 
> Likewise login.3 uncertain GFDL.
> 
> Likewise remove.3 which should include copyright notices from unlink.2 as a derived work.
> 
> May we please add back the uncertain text notes?

Okay.

> 
> Were any of these uncertain notices resolved?

Some of them might have been resolved due to the affected text being
removed.  It's probably not worth the effort, so I think it might be
easier to just restore them (even if maybe not relevant anymore).


Cheers,
Alex

> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Carlos.
> 
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: Two copyright notices missing in 6.20?

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 11/3/26 10:28 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Carlos,
> 
>> Date: 2026-11-03 09:55:31-0500
>> From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
>>
> [...]
>>> Did I miss any?
>>
>> Yes, 3, but I will also note the remaining 4 topics that came from the audit.
>>
>> (1) Copyright statements for Michael Kerrisk
>>
>> sync.2:
>> \" Copyright (c) 1992 Drew Eckhardt (drew@cs.colorado.edu), March 28, 1992
>> .\" and Copyright (c) 2011 Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
>>
>> select.2:
>> .\" This manpage is copyright (C) 1992 Drew Eckhardt,
>> .\"     copyright (C) 1995 Michael Shields,
>> .\"     copyright (C) 2001 Paul Sheer,
>> .\"     copyright (C) 2006, 2019 Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
>>
>> epoll_ctl.2:
>> .\"  Copyright (C) 2003  Davide Libenzi
>> .\"  Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
>> .\" and Copyright 2009, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Michael Kerrisk <tk.manpages@gmail.com>
>>
>> May you please add these 3 back for Michael?
> 
> Sure; thanks!  Will do tonight.
> 
>> (2) Removal of Linux Foundation copyright statements
>>
>> There were ~116 of Linux Foundation copyright notices present that were removed.
> 
> I'm waiting for them to approve it formally.  I expect they will.

Thank you.

If you need any help there please just ask and I'll see what I can do.

>> e.g.
>> a1eaacb1a5 man7/signal.7     (Alejandro Colomar    2022-11-09 16:36:36 +0100    1) '\" t
>> ^fea681daf man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2004-11-03 13:51:07 +0000    2) .\" Copyright (c) 1993 by Thomas Koenig (ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de)
>> f527d6fe30 man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2020-11-12 16:36:34 +0100    3) .\" and Copyright (c) 2002, 2006, 2020 by Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
>> 743bc3957a man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2008-07-04 14:36:28 +0000    4) .\" and Copyright (c) 2008 Linux Foundation, written by Michael Kerrisk
>> 743bc3957a man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2008-07-04 14:36:28 +0000    5) .\"     <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
>>
>> a1eaacb1a5 man7/signal.7     (Alejandro Colomar    2022-11-09 16:36:36 +0100    1) '\" t
>> 73ec1f03be man/man7/signal.7 (Alejandro Colomar    2025-11-21 01:08:05 +0100    2) .\" Copyright 1993, Thomas Koenig <ig25@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
>> 73ec1f03be man/man7/signal.7 (Alejandro Colomar    2025-11-21 01:08:05 +0100    3) .\" Copyright 2002-2020, Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
>> f99f884ddb man/man7/signal.7 (Alejandro Colomar    2025-05-17 15:18:26 +0200    4) .\" Copyright, the authors of the Linux man-pages project
>> ^fea681daf man7/signal.7     (Michael Kerrisk      2004-11-03 13:51:07 +0000    5) .\"
>>
>> Did the project get permission from the foundation for the removal?
> 
> Not yet.

Until that approval arrives would you consider reinstating the copyright notices
that belong to the Linux Foundation?

>> (3) Collapsed years
>>
>> Michael's copyright status collapsed from 2002, 2006, 20220 to 2002-2020.
>>
>> Were additional contributions made in the intervening years?
> 
> I don't know.  I suspect there are, even though he probably didn't
> consider them worthy of copyright.
> 
>> If there were no such contributions then the years should be kept distinct.
> 
> I think I disagree.  The copyright dates are only meaningful as a start
> and an end.  One could also argue that 2005 means 2005-01..2005-12, but
> there might have been contributions only in 2005-07.  Is it legally
> meaningful to say 2002, 2004 in a way that 2002-07, 2002-09, 2004-05
> isn't?  And is it legally meaningful to say 2002-2004 instead of any of
> the above?

I've responded to Branden on this topic downthread.

I leave this with you to decide.

>> Only ranges like 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 etc. should be collapsed into a contiguous range e.g. 2002-2005.
>>
>> May you please correct the collapsed ranges?
> 
> I'd really like to avoid this.
> 
>> (4) SPDX identifiers
>>
>> With Linus' clause restored, the SPDX identifier for setreuid.2 is not correct.
>>
>> The original text read:
>> .\" Portions extracted from linux/kernel/sys.c:
>> .\"             Copyright (C) 1991, 1992  Linus Torvalds
>> .\"             May be distributed under the GNU General Public License
>>
>> Which makes this SPDX identifier incorrect:
>> .\" SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-4-Clause-UC
>>
>> Should include GPL?
> 
> Indeed.
> 
>> Likewise bind.2.
>>
>> Likewise connect.2.
>>
>> Likewise iopl.2 implied GPL.
>>
>> Likewise subpage_prot.2 implied GPL.
>>
>> May you please update 5 pages with GPL notices?
> 
> Thanks!  I'll GPL these files tonight.

Thank you!

>>
>> Likewise signbit.3, significand.3, and memcpy.3 are GFDL derivatives.
>> - These should be rewritten from scratch or GFDL front-matter invariant requirements apply.
> 
> Ouch!  Indeed.

Yes, these are problematic and we should move towards compliance.

>>
>> The man-pages project should not copy from the glibc manual
>> due to the GFDL front-matter invariant requirements, and that
>> GFDL cannot be combined with GPL.
> 
> Agree.  I'll try to rewrite them from scratch.

Thank you!

> memcpy(3) will be easier, because I know the page very well (and I've
> already rewritten most of it from scratch; I guess the only remnants are
> in CAVEATS).  The others, I'll need to learn about them before
> rewriting.  I'll use the BSD pages to learn about these APIs.

Perfect.

I will go publicly on the record as saying I do not like the GFDL for the
glibc manual, the invariant section, and choice of incompatibility with
the LGPLv2+ means we can't even copy comments into the manual without
having someone who can relicense them. This is a process mistake that we've
been trying to fix for a long time.

>> (5) Uncertain provenance
>>
>> Restore the des_crypt.3 uncertain provenance header:
>>
>> .\" However, the above header line suggests that this file in fact is
>> .\" Copyright Sun Microsystems, Inc (and is provided for unrestricted use,
>> .\" see other Sun RPC sources).
>>
>> Or conclusively resolve the provenance issue.
>>
>> I'd leave the SPDX-header as-is because Eric's statement can be seen as authoritative
>> over the uncertain provenance.
>>
>> Likewise login.3 uncertain GFDL.
>>
>> Likewise remove.3 which should include copyright notices from unlink.2 as a derived work.
>>
>> May we please add back the uncertain text notes?
> 
> Okay.
> 
>>
>> Were any of these uncertain notices resolved?
> 
> Some of them might have been resolved due to the affected text being
> removed.  It's probably not worth the effort, so I think it might be
> easier to just restore them (even if maybe not relevant anymore).

Thank you very much for your help in getting everything to point where
we can publish this in Fedora.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

GPL/GFDL incompatibility (was: Two copyright notices missing in 6.20?)

[G. Branden Robinson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1865 bytes --]

At 2026-11-03T13:02:01-0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 11/3/26 10:28 AM, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > Date: 2026-11-03 09:55:31-0500
> > > From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
> > > Likewise signbit.3, significand.3, and memcpy.3 are GFDL
> > > derivatives.
> > > - These should be rewritten from scratch or GFDL front-matter
> > > invariant requirements apply.
> > 
> > Ouch!  Indeed.
> 
> Yes, these are problematic and we should move towards compliance.
[...]
> I will go publicly on the record as saying I do not like the GFDL for
> the glibc manual, the invariant section, and choice of incompatibility
> with the LGPLv2+ means we can't even copy comments into the manual
> without having someone who can relicense them.  This is a process
> mistake that we've been trying to fix for a long time.

Can you shed some light on what is impeding the fix?

I share your frustration with GFDL.  Fortunately groff has escaped this
difficulty; for at least 22 years,[1][2] its maintainers have held that
everything distributed as part of it is licensed under the GPLv3, with
certain portions dual-licensed under other terms.  So, for example,
groff's Texinfo manual is also under the GFDLv1.3, the grn preprocessor
(from "Berkeley ditroff", a specimen that does not seem to otherwise
survive) is also under the usual UC Regents license, and gxditview is
also under the MIT X Consortium's permissive terms.

In the groff 1.25.0 release, which I hope to make later this week, the
copyright page of its Texinfo manual will be explicit about this.

https://cgit.git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/doc/groff.texi.in?h=1.25.0.rc4#n26

Regards,
Branden

[1]  https://salsa.debian.org/debian/groff/-/blob/master/debian/copyright?ref_type=heads
[2]  https://cgit.git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/groff.git/tree/LICENSES?h=1.24.2

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

copyright year ranges and "collapse" (was: Two copyright notices missing in 6.20?)

[G. Branden Robinson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2417 bytes --]

Hi Carlos,

At 2026-11-03T09:55:31-0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> (3) Collapsed years
> 
> Michael's copyright status collapsed from 2002, 2006, 20220 to 2002-2020.
> 
> Were additional contributions made in the intervening years?
> 
> If there were no such contributions then the years should be kept
> distinct.

I disagree.  The duration of copyright is life plus 70 years for natural
persons and 95 years for corporations.  As I've noted in groff's
"HACKING" file, these durations are so lengthy that no work of computer
software or its documentation has _ever_ yet aged into the public
domain.  (Some never enjoyed copyright status in the first place, and
some has been contributed to the public domain deliberately.)

Barring significant and retroactive reduction of copyright durations,
which would surely be litigated by Disney et al. on Fifth Amendment
"takings" grounds,[1] there is no way that any of us will be alive by
the time any Linux man-pages contributor's copyright lapses.

But let's suppose that Michael Kerrisk passes away this year (I hope
not!), and another of us lives beyond the year 2096.  Good thing we have
all these comma-separated years to tell us...what, exactly?

That something's become part of the public domain, of course!

Yeah, that's right.  Looking at a man(7) document..._which_ parts???

Without something akin to Git history in the form of "git log -p" or the
equivalent, we can't know which bits of a document undergoing repeated
revision over a course of years go into the public domain and which bits
of it don't.

And if one has something as good as "git log -p", one doesn't need a
copyright notice that very carefully says...

Copyright 2002, 2006, 2008, 2012, 2027, 2031-2034, 2045 J. Random Hacker

The enumeration of years is, therefore, clutter that offers no advantage
and no practical utility.  It reminds me of a character from pedestrian
science fiction reciting a quantity to ten decimal places when at most
three significant figures are necessary.

Condense a copyright holder's year notice to the endpoints of the range.

I am not a lawyer.  This is not legal advice.  The expertise I don't
possess is limited to the United States.  Your mileage may vary.

Regards,
Branden

[1] because in the U.S. at least, there is no form of property more
    sacrosanct than the promise of future economic rents

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: copyright year ranges and "collapse"

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 11/3/26 11:54 AM, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> I am not a lawyer.  This is not legal advice.  The expertise I don't
> possess is limited to the United States.  Your mileage may vary.

I disagree.

I will note that this has come up in other communities.

Guidance given by the GNU Project and the FSF is to keep the years
distinct if they do not form a continuous range.

https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html

~~~
You can use a range (‘2008-2010’) instead of listing individual years
(‘2008, 2009, 2010’) if and only if: 1) every year in the range,
inclusive, really is a “copyrightable” year that would be listed
individually; and 2) you make an explicit statement in a README file
about this usage:

     For any copyright year range specified as YYYY-ZZZZ in this package
     note that the range specifies every single year in that closed
     interval.
~~~

The man pages project can choose differently.

I agree with the guidance because it is more accurate, promotes
eventual entry into the public domain, and can be referenced without
access to source control.

My understanding is that under US Copyright the years may be collapsed
without invalidating the statutory copyright statement.

I leave this up to Alejandro to decide.

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.

Re: copyright year ranges and "collapse"

[G. Branden Robinson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4426 bytes --]

At 2026-11-03T12:55:53-0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On 11/3/26 11:54 AM, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > I am not a lawyer.  This is not legal advice.  The expertise I don't
> > possess is limited to the United States.  Your mileage may vary.
> 
> I disagree.

No kidding.

> I will note that this has come up in other communities.

Well of course it has.

> Guidance given by the GNU Project and the FSF is to keep the years
> distinct if they do not form a continuous range.

The groff project historically (almost?) never did this, and I regard it
as an unproductive use of my time to go back over the circa 2,000 files
comprising it to insert gaps in the year ranges, a procedure that would
be further stymied by the murky first decade or so of its history (from
1989 to about 2000), where have only release snapshots,[0] sometimes
with more than a year's gap between them.  For example, from 1995 to
1999 or so, the pace of groff development was extremely slow.  But it's
hard to say with precision which files were and were not altered in any
way, let alone in a way that met the threshold of original expression
required for copyright.

It's tedious enough fixing up groff's copyright notices to unwind the
robotic "bumps" that were once done at intervals, and in some GNU
projects are done every year in January to every file even in the utter
absence of any other modification to it.

For example:
https://cgit.git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/commit/?id=73d3a49f45770c45808e4fdab35ae4fe248a3cd9

> https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Notices.html
> 
> ~~~
> You can use a range (‘2008-2010’) instead of listing individual years
> (‘2008, 2009, 2010’) if and only if: 1) every year in the range,
> inclusive, really is a “copyrightable” year that would be listed
> individually; and 2) you make an explicit statement in a README file
> about this usage:
> 
>     For any copyright year range specified as YYYY-ZZZZ in this package
>     note that the range specifies every single year in that closed
>     interval.
> ~~~

I reject this guidance.  It's impractical for me to apply it to groff.

The guidelines also speak of copyright assignment to the FSF,[1] but
glibc, for instance, has chosen to go its own way.  Of course you know.

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2021-July/129577.html

groff made a similar decision some years ago.  (I don't know when; I
wasn't involved with the project yet.)

> The man pages project can choose differently.

Of course!

> I agree with the guidance because it is more accurate, promotes
> eventual entry into the public domain,

Only when there is only one year in the notice.  If there's more than
one, how do you know which parts of a file have passed into the public
domain?  If people can't identify these parts to reuse them freely, then
their liberation from copyright is a mere notion, without substance.

I don't think you read my message closely.

> and can be referenced without access to source control.

...without that?

> My understanding is that under US Copyright the years may be collapsed
> without invalidating the statutory copyright statement.

As far as I know that's correct, but I'm not a lawyer.  I offer my views
as one project maintainer to another.

> I leave this up to Alejandro to decide.

I don't think he requires your leave.  ...unless you have executive
responsibility for copyrighted materials in it that you mean to withdraw
if Alex doesn't administer the Linux man-pages to your satisfaction.

Is that the case?

Regards,
Branden

[0]  In fact we have nothing at all prior to groff 1.01 in 1991, and
     that only because BSD Net/2 got preserved on the Web.

     https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=Net2/usr/src/usr.bin/groff/groff/groff.cc

     So anyone agitating for groff pre-1.01's public domain materials in
     2084-2085[2] will, I expect, face a daunting task in software
     archeology, if some wonderful discovery is not made in the interim.

[1]  https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Papers

[2]  As I understand it, material copyrighted by the FSF in 1991 will
     pass into the public domain on 1 January 2086.

     https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html

     But maybe I'm off by one and it'll be 1 January 2087.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: copyright year ranges and "collapse"

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 11/3/26 1:39 PM, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2026-11-03T12:55:53-0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> The man pages project can choose differently.
> 
> Of course!
> 
>> I agree with the guidance because it is more accurate, promotes
>> eventual entry into the public domain,
> 
> Only when there is only one year in the notice.  If there's more than
> one, how do you know which parts of a file have passed into the public
> domain?  If people can't identify these parts to reuse them freely, then
> their liberation from copyright is a mere notion, without substance.

Only if you have one source tarball?

We often have more than one source tarball as a durable artifact of the
release process in downstream or upstream, and with that you can "promote"
entry into the public domain.

> I don't think you read my message closely.

Maybe. What do you think I have missed? 
>> and can be referenced without access to source control.
> 
> ...without that?

May you please expand on that question?

>> My understanding is that under US Copyright the years may be collapsed
>> without invalidating the statutory copyright statement.
> 
> As far as I know that's correct, but I'm not a lawyer.  I offer my views
> as one project maintainer to another.

Likewise.

>> I leave this up to Alejandro to decide.
> 
> I don't think he requires your leave.  ...unless you have executive
> responsibility for copyrighted materials in it that you mean to withdraw
> if Alex doesn't administer the Linux man-pages to your satisfaction.
> 
> Is that the case?

LOL. No.

Let me state my goals.

Firstly I assume we're looking to achieve consensus in this discussion.

In seeking to achieve consensus I *don't* want my objection or disagreement
to be considered blocking in any way, so when I wrote the above I intended
it only in the sense that I don't want to block consensus from forming.

If you and Alejandro form consensus that the project won't keep years
separated, I'm fine with that.

I could have written "Please don't consider my disagreement to block anyone
arriving at consensus on the matter of expanded or contracted copyright
year."

Instead I wrote the above terse reply, deferring consensus because Alejandro
as the one with commit access has ultimate governance over the project.

Alejandro doesn't require my leave.

Secondly, I want to ship an updated man-pages in Fedora, and I would like
to work through the outstanding license and copyright issues to support
that. Alejandro has asked what is missing, and I'm providing feedback.
If there is something where we don't agree I assume we'll work to seek
consensus (like this topic).

> Regards,
> Branden
> 
> [0]  In fact we have nothing at all prior to groff 1.01 in 1991, and
>       that only because BSD Net/2 got preserved on the Web.
> 
>       https://www.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/utree.pl?file=Net2/usr/src/usr.bin/groff/groff/groff.cc
> 
>       So anyone agitating for groff pre-1.01's public domain materials in
>       2084-2085[2] will, I expect, face a daunting task in software
>       archeology, if some wonderful discovery is not made in the interim.
> 
> [1]  https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Copyright-Papers
> 
> [2]  As I understand it, material copyrighted by the FSF in 1991 will
>       pass into the public domain on 1 January 2086.
> 
>       https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html
> 
>       But maybe I'm off by one and it'll be 1 January 2087.


-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.