From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n3D9giZt097661 for ; Mon, 13 Apr 2009 04:42:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:42:05 -0400 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: xfstests license clarification? Message-ID: <20090413094205.GA19277@infradead.org> References: <49CE3A1A.9020103@sandeen.net> <578FD09C-C517-48C8-9299-7EB805D8337B@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <578FD09C-C517-48C8-9299-7EB805D8337B@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Felix Blyakher Cc: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 01:47:08PM -0500, Felix Blyakher wrote: > > On Mar 28, 2009, at 9:54 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >> Since most of the scripts themselves in xfstests make no mention of >> redistribution, and only say "copyright sgi, all rights reserved" etc: >> >> #----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> # Copyright (c) 2006 Silicon Graphics, Inc. All Rights Reserved. >> #----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> do we need to do anything in terms of making this look more like Free >> Software (assuming that's the intent?) > > Yes, it was intent. And it's OK to add the GPL license blob > there. Can't speak for non sgi files. How official is this? Can we get a patch signed off by an sgi.com address changing the license statements? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs