| To: | Suzanne Engel <sengel@xxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Sorry! . . . .wrong email attached . . . |
| From: | Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 8 Aug 2002 17:37:38 -0700 (PDT) |
| Cc: | "'linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx'" <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <ED373A183611D311A6220060943F134C05200543@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
> whether or not my source code will need
> to be open or if it can remain proprietary?
This is not an XFS question -- it is a legal question,
involving Linux loadable modules, the GPL and such.
We are not lawyers, and in particular, we are not your lawyer.
It would be inappropriate for us, as employees of SGI, to
comment on whether a Linux kernel module needs to be GPL'd.
I will agree that it is an issue that can generate discussion
from various positions.
--
I won't rest till it's the best ...
Programmer, Linux Scalability
Paul Jackson <pj@xxxxxxx> 1.650.933.1373
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: TAKE - xfsprogs-2.2.0, Nathan Scott |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | TAKE - Upgrade to kdb v2.3 for i386, Keith Owens |
| Previous by Thread: | Sorry! . . . .wrong email attached . . ., Suzanne Engel |
| Next by Thread: | New XFS Release? [bump], Derek Glidden |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |