Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Russell Cattelan wrote:
> > Two finding anybody in SGI management that actually wants
> > XFS on BSD to happen and thus willing to commit resources to
> > writing a "dual" licensee.
> Remember that one of the most time-consuming, difficult parts of this
> project early on was handling the "lawyer issues" - I saw one slide that
> said a couple lawyers quit in the process.... :) Tackling that all over
> again would probably not be a high priority.
Actually that had to do with the de-encumbering process, i.e. trying
to figure out which pieces of code might be bound up with license
SGI signed at one point.
Since that part is already done the issue is mostly the wording of a new
> Also, you have to think about "what would SGI gain from a BSD port?" -
> what would justify the extra expense for the company? XFS for Linux is
> a strategic move for SGI, it's not a purely altruistic project. :)
It wasn't an issue of gain or not gain for SGI but a sense of what could
XFS on solaris seems to be the biggest fear.
SGI is not against XFS on BSD and they would be willing to find that
happy license medium if somebody from the BSD community would
actually do the most of the work to write a license that would fit with BSD
but not allow an open free for all in the commercial area.
> Eric Sandeen XFS for Linux http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs
> sandeen@xxxxxxx SGI, Inc.