xfstests license clarification?

xfstests license clarification?

[Eric Sandeen]

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?)

It might be a rats-nest, there are a several testcases in src/ gleaned
from mailing lists & bugs with little or no attribution; OTOH maybe this
stuff is trivial enough that it doesn't warrant copyright, I dunno.

Is it worth trying to clarify the license on the collection, or is this
just a can of worms?

-Eric

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: xfstests license clarification?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 09:54:18AM -0500, 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?)
> 
> It might be a rats-nest, there are a several testcases in src/ gleaned
> from mailing lists & bugs with little or no attribution; OTOH maybe this
> stuff is trivial enough that it doesn't warrant copyright, I dunno.
> 
> Is it worth trying to clarify the license on the collection, or is this
> just a can of worms?

While only a couple of files have the same, just with me as a copyright
holder I'm willing to license it under whatever free license suits best.

I suspect BSD might be best for test code like this.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: xfstests license clarification?

[Felix Blyakher]

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.

Felix

> It might be a rats-nest, there are a several testcases in src/ gleaned
> from mailing lists & bugs with little or no attribution; OTOH maybe  
> this
> stuff is trivial enough that it doesn't warrant copyright, I dunno.
>
> Is it worth trying to clarify the license on the collection, or is  
> this
> just a can of worms?
>
> -Eric
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

Re: xfstests license clarification?

[Christoph Hellwig]

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