[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Patch for UFS2
From: |
Yoshinori K. Okuji |
Subject: |
Re: Patch for UFS2 |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:09:15 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5.3 |
Hi Robert,
On Friday 30 April 2004 00:18, Robert Millan wrote:
> It contains code from FreeBSD "biosboot" bootloader, which as its
> turn contains code from CMU Mach, whose license has the weird
> requisite that you must send an email with the diffs if you modifiy
> the file. GNU hackers involved on GNU Mach might have a better idea,
> but I think asking for copyright assignment from CMU is a waste of
> time.
Please read this page first:
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_10.html#SEC10
We shouldn't try to get a copyright assignment for code written for
another package.
About the license, I don't think the Mach license is incompatible
against GPL. It just says:
+ * Carnegie Mellon requests users of this software to return to
+ *
+ * Software Distribution Coordinator or
address@hidden
+ * School of Computer Science
+ * Carnegie Mellon University
+ * Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890
They don't say "require" but it's simply a request. So, if my
undestanding is correct, its legal impact should be void.
As I'm not a lawyer, I might be wrong. So I can ask address@hidden if
you think I should confirm it.
> ufs2.h is most likely extracted from the FreeBSD implementation of
> UFS2 and copyrighted by Networks Associates Technology, Inc. License
> is a 3-clause BSD-style one and seems ok, but I think we'll have
> serious difficulties if we try to get copyright assigned from NAT.
The same as above.
Okuji
- Patch for UFS2, Robert Millan, 2004/04/29
- Re: Patch for UFS2,
Yoshinori K. Okuji <=