Suneel Jain wrote: > The Open64 Steering group will have a discussion on this topic with legal > inputs > and post any clarifications needed on the licensing issue. > > [What follows below is my personal opinion and not legal advice] > > The Open64 compiler was open-sourced by SGI under "GPL version 2". > The open64.net source tree continues to be licensed under GPLv2. > The PathScale source tree till PSC 3.3 beta was also licensed under GPLv2. > In my opinion, code can be freely copied between open64.net and PathScale > sources upto 3.3 beta, since they are all under a compatible license. > Does this proposed patch from Doug meet the check-in policy requirements? I thought it was *really* obvious what I was trying to point out, but let me be more blunt..
CheckinPolicy [1] "Any new source file checked into the Open64 source tree should have a GPL v2+ compatible license." Change the policy or quit bitching when someone tries to help point out the obvious with code review.. [1] http://wiki.open64.net/index.php/CheckinPolicy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb _______________________________________________ Open64-devel mailing list Open64-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open64-devel
