[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fwd: xfs_reno

To: Hans-Peter Jansen <hpj@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Fwd: xfs_reno
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 14:16:17 -0600
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130307041348.GD6369@dastard>
References: <20351675.Zy117sIl8Z@xrated> <20130307041348.GD6369@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Hi Pete,

On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 03:13:48PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 03:55:19PM +0100, Hans-Peter Jansen wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> > 
> > I tried to gather Barrys SOB, but failed so far. His trace ends in 2009 
> > google 
> > wise.
> > 
> > How is this case usually handled?
> > 
> > Here's the current state of things.
> He was working for SGI at the time, so you should be able to get
> anyone from SGI provide a valid S-O-B if needed.
> As it is, I can probably verify the patch origins sufficiently
> to add a SOB to it as:
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-11/msg00769.html
> It's pretty clear that the code was released under the GPL and free
> from any tainted code by SGI. The post I'm pointing to above is one
> I made while an SGI employee, and it effectively verifies the origin
> of the code in the same way a S-O-B does.
> So, you probably don't even need to chase a S-O-B from SGI if you
> just point at that email and attribute the code correctly. i.e.
> retaining al the SGI copyright notices in the code and saying inteh
> patch description that the code was originally authored by SGI and
> released under the same license as the rest of the xfs userspace
> code.

Looks good to me as is.  Links and attribution are in the header, copyright
notices, etc.  We'll clean up that copyright header in the Makefile with a
separate commit authored by a current SGI employee.

You can add a Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> if you want.  No need to
repost just for that.

Thanks for spending the time!


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>