Tom Duffy wrote:
> Juha Saarinen wrote:
> >
> > I've noticed that there's some interest from the FreeBSD crowd in XFS.
> > But, they don't like the GPL... would SGI consider using a BSD-style
> > license instead?
>
> IANAL, nor do I represent SGI in any official capacity, but I don't
> think SGI would be very interested in doing this. We (SGI) released XFS
> to help make Linux a high class OS because we want to sell Linux on our
> boxen and want a commodity OS.
>
> But, if we could convince the powers that be, it may be possible to
> release the code under a dual license, but then changes coming back
> would be tricky to reincorporate. I highly doubt we will not stop the
> GPL release of XFS because this would hinder the code from going into
> the mainline kernel.
note there is several examples of non GPL'ed / dual licensed code in
the kernel ... the new adaptec drivers for example.
>
>
> We already have a sticky situation when external people submit core xfs
> patches back to us if we want to put that code into IRIX. What I think
> the plana of action is to ask each patch maintainer if they would be
> willing to sign away their copyright to SGI so the code can be stuck
> into IRIX...I don't think this has come up yet since most of the major
> development has taken place in house or from SGI contractors.
Yup no major code contributions have been made outside of the linux
side of XFS.
>
>
> -tduffy
--
Russell Cattelan
cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx
|