I don't think that this is an appropriate forum but I will put in my two
cents nonetheless. At least as of a couple of years age MIPS was the most
widely used embedded processor in the world. Thus, MIPS is in no way
dependent on IRIX. Not to mention that Linux runs on MIPS.
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
I am currently conducting a thorough study of the VFS subsystem
in preparation for an all-out effort to port SGI's XFS filesystem to
FreeBSD 4.x at such time as SGI gives up the code. Matt Dillon
has written in hackers- that the VFS subsystem is
2. Advisory locks are hung off private backing objects.
Advisory locks are passed into VOP_ADVLOCK in each FS
instance, and then each FS applies this by hanging the
locks off a list on a private backing object. For FFS,
this is the in core inode.
A more
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
2.Advisory locks are hung off private backing objects.
I'd vote againsts your implimentation suggestion for VOP_ADVLOCK on an
efficiency concern. If we actually make a VOP call, that should be the
end of the story. I.e either add a
2. Advisory locks are hung off private backing objects.
I'd vote againsts your implimentation suggestion for VOP_ADVLOCK on an
efficiency concern. If we actually make a VOP call, that should be the
end of the story. I.e either add a vnode flag to indicate pas/fail-ness,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Narvi writes:
: Nintendo 64 uses MIPS.
:
:
: Which doesn't matter all that much. MIPS cpus for nintendo could be made
: by say MISP, not SGI (and SGI sold/is trying to sell MIPS).
Acutally, the Nintendo 64 uses the Vr4300 series of chips from NEC. I
think the
On Sat, Aug 14, 1999 at 12:23:00PM -0400, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, James Howard wrote:
I heard somewhere that Linux was released under a slightly modified GPL to
permit the inclusion of BSD code. I assumed they did this to steal the IP
stack.
Most likely.
Nope.
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
Given that they say they're dropping IRIX and going with Linux, I
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
Given that they
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
Given that they say they're dropping IRIX and going
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
--- Terry Lambert tlamb...@primenet.com wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
Can you please site a reference for this, other than
wishful
thinking by the Linux camp?
Here's one:
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,1015908,00.html
But just about
I lost track of the quotes.
| --- With the help of Veritas Software Corp., SGI will work to add
| key features of its Irix operating system to the Linux platform.
| Currently, Irix runs on the MIPS platform. Once SGI switches
| entirely to Intel Corp.'s IA/64 platform, that will be the
I lost track of the quotes.
| --- With the help of Veritas Software Corp., SGI will work to add
| key features of its Irix operating system to the Linux platform.
| Currently, Irix runs on the MIPS platform. Once SGI switches
| entirely to Intel Corp.'s IA/64 platform, that will be
These paragraphs are contradictory. It implies an end to MIPS.
Nintendo 64 uses MIPS.
It also seems a bit overzealous.
No argument here. Perhaps they're just trying to float a few trial
baloons in hopes of finding something popular/feasable.
That was my take on things, since
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
At 4:19 PM + 8/16/99, Terry Lambert wrote:
Begging your pardon, but:
| --- With the help of Veritas Software Corp., SGI will work to add
| key features of its Irix operating system to the Linux platform.
| Currently, Irix runs on the MIPS platform. Once SGI switches
| entirely to Intel
I don't think that this is an appropriate forum but I will put in my two
cents nonetheless. At least as of a couple of years age MIPS was the most
widely used embedded processor in the world. Thus, MIPS is in no way
dependent on IRIX. Not to mention that Linux runs on MIPS.
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
For an interesting take on all this visit www.mipsabi.org
Uh, that site is dead, as of the end of this month. See the
first link (announcement).
Precisely my point ...
ron
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
I am currently conducting a thorough study of the VFS subsystem
in preparation for an all-out effort to port SGI's XFS filesystem to
FreeBSD 4.x at such time as SGI gives up the code. Matt Dillon
has written in hackers- that the VFS subsystem is
2. Advisory locks are hung off private backing objects.
Advisory locks are passed into VOP_ADVLOCK in each FS
instance, and then each FS applies this by hanging the
locks off a list on a private backing object. For FFS,
this is the in core inode.
A more
On Mon, 16 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
2.Advisory locks are hung off private backing objects.
I'd vote againsts your implimentation suggestion for VOP_ADVLOCK on an
efficiency concern. If we actually make a VOP call, that should be the
end of the story. I.e either add a vnode
2. Advisory locks are hung off private backing objects.
I'd vote againsts your implimentation suggestion for VOP_ADVLOCK on an
efficiency concern. If we actually make a VOP call, that should be the
end of the story. I.e either add a vnode flag to indicate pas/fail-ness,
or
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
It doesn't work like that; once it's been distributed with Linux it's
no longer BSD-licensed, it's GPLed. They would still be unable to
recover post-viral changes and reuse them in their own XFS product.
I heard somewhere that Linux was released
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, James Howard wrote:
Would it be legal to strip the BSD license of say, inetd and put a GPL on
it? Many in the Linux community seem to think this is true but I thought
that'd be just as bad as my BSD licensed GCC
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, David Scheidt wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, James Howard wrote:
Would it be legal to strip the BSD license of say, inetd and put a GPL on
it? Many in the Linux community seem to think this is true but I thought
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:46:27 -0700
Mike Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, if they were to simply put a BSD license on the code, then everyone
would be happy, and there wouldn't be any of the dual-license confusion.
It doesn't work like that; once it's been distributed with
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:38:17 -0700
Mike Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What the GPL does is require that full source for the program be included
with the program, and that full source, in my example, would include
a BSD-licensed XFS module.
It also requires that the GPL be
[Regarding GPL]
If a company sell or lease us a mailserver based on Linux, where we only
have smtp and pop3-access to, can we say "Hey, this is GPL'ed, give us the
source"?
Leif
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
[Regarding GPL]
If a company sell or lease us a mailserver based on Linux, where we only
have smtp and pop3-access to, can we say "Hey, this is GPL'ed, give us the
source"?
Yes, you can do that; it's required for source to be "easily available"
in the
After seeing this discussion go on for just a wee bit too long, I have a
couple of questions for the armchair lawyers to answer. Has anyone ever
successfully enforced the GPL? (in other words, has anyone ever violated
it then been sued over it?) If not, how enforcable is it? From the length
of
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
[Regarding GPL]
If a company sell or lease us a mailserver based on Linux, where we only
have smtp and pop3-access to, can we say "Hey, this is GPL'ed, give us the
source"?
Yes, you can do that;
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
[Regarding GPL]
Can we please get this discussion out of -hackers, and into somewhere more
apporipate like freebsd-advocacy.
--
Mike Pritchard
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
It doesn't work like that; once it's been distributed with Linux it's
no longer BSD-licensed, it's GPLed. They would still be unable to
recover post-viral changes and reuse them in their own XFS product.
I heard somewhere that Linux was released under
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, James Howard wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
It doesn't work like that; once it's been distributed with Linux it's
no longer BSD-licensed, it's GPLed. They would still be unable to
recover post-viral changes and reuse them in their own XFS product.
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, James Howard wrote:
Would it be legal to strip the BSD license of say, inetd and put a GPL on
it? Many in the Linux community seem to think this is true but I thought
that'd be just as bad as my BSD licensed GCC
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, David Scheidt wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, James Howard wrote:
Would it be legal to strip the BSD license of say, inetd and put a GPL on
it? Many in the Linux community seem to think this is true but I thought
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:46:27 -0700
Mike Smith m...@smith.net.au wrote:
So, if they were to simply put a BSD license on the code, then everyone
would be happy, and there wouldn't be any of the dual-license confusion.
It doesn't work like that; once it's been distributed with Linux
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 21:46:27 -0700
Mike Smith m...@smith.net.au wrote:
So, if they were to simply put a BSD license on the code, then everyone
would be happy, and there wouldn't be any of the dual-license confusion.
It doesn't work like that; once it's been distributed with
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999 10:38:17 -0700
Mike Smith m...@smith.net.au wrote:
What the GPL does is require that full source for the program be included
with the program, and that full source, in my example, would include
a BSD-licensed XFS module.
It also requires that the GPL be
[Regarding GPL]
If a company sell or lease us a mailserver based on Linux, where we only
have smtp and pop3-access to, can we say Hey, this is GPL'ed, give us the
source?
Leif
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
[Regarding GPL]
If a company sell or lease us a mailserver based on Linux, where we only
have smtp and pop3-access to, can we say Hey, this is GPL'ed, give us the
source?
Yes, you can do that; it's required for source to be easily available
in the GPL.
After seeing this discussion go on for just a wee bit too long, I have a
couple of questions for the armchair lawyers to answer. Has anyone ever
successfully enforced the GPL? (in other words, has anyone ever violated
it then been sued over it?) If not, how enforcable is it? From the length
of the
Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, James Howard wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Mike Smith wrote:
It doesn't work like that; once it's been distributed with Linux it's
no longer BSD-licensed, it's GPLed. They would still be unable to
recover post-viral changes and reuse
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
[Regarding GPL]
If a company sell or lease us a mailserver based on Linux, where we only
have smtp and pop3-access to, can we say Hey, this is GPL'ed, give us the
source?
Yes, you can do that; it's
On Sat, 14 Aug 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
[Regarding GPL]
Can we please get this discussion out of -hackers, and into somewhere more
apporipate like freebsd-advocacy.
--
Mike Pritchard
m...@freebsd.org or m...@mpp.pro-ns.net
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with
This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
would support incorporation into FreeBSD.
good luck, the SGI crowd are very Linux-oriented.
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 22:49:14 + (GMT)
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
SGI is plummetting to their
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 17:49
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BSD XFS Port BSD VFS Rewrite
This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
would support incorporation into FreeBSD.
good
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
That is not correct: if SGI only use code that they have full
ownership of in
I am currently conducting a thorough study of the VFS subsystem
in preparation for an all-out effort to port SGI's XFS filesystem to
FreeBSD 4.x at such time as SGI gives up the code. Matt Dillon
has written in hackers- that the VFS subsystem is presently not
well understood by any of the
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
James Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
and that if they dual licensed the code, it could be used by the entire
free software community, not just the hip Linux crowd and also
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Jason Thorpe wrote:
I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
and that if they dual licensed the code, it could be used by the entire
free software community, not just the hip Linux crowd and also mentioned
that a great many in
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
James Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
and that if they dual licensed the code, it could be used by the entire
free software community, not just the hip Linux crowd
This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
would support incorporation into FreeBSD.
good luck, the SGI crowd are very Linux-oriented.
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the
This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
would support incorporation into FreeBSD.
good luck, the SGI crowd are very Linux-oriented.
I had some quite promising discussions with several of the SGI folks
with regard to getting information on their new
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 22:49:14 + (GMT)
Terry Lambert tlamb...@primenet.com wrote:
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
SGI is plummetting to their
[mailto:tlamb...@primenet.com]
Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 17:49
To: tingu...@plains.nodak.edu
Cc: howar...@wam.umd.edu; hack...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: BSD XFS Port BSD VFS Rewrite
This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
would support incorporation
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
Given that they say they're dropping IRIX and going with Linux, I don't
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
Terry Lambert tlamb...@primenet.com wrote:
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
That is not correct: if SGI only use code that they have full
ownership of in
On 13 Aug, Bill Studenmund wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Terry Lambert wrote:
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
Given that they say they're dropping
I am currently conducting a thorough study of the VFS subsystem
in preparation for an all-out effort to port SGI's XFS filesystem to
FreeBSD 4.x at such time as SGI gives up the code. Matt Dillon
has written in hackers- that the VFS subsystem is presently not
well understood by any of the
Has anyone mentioned to them that they will be unable to incorporate
changes made to the GPL'ed version of XFS back into the IRIX version
of XFS, without IRIX becoming GPL'ed?
That is not correct: if SGI only use code that they have full
ownership of in IRIX then they can distribute it
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
James Howard howar...@wam.umd.edu wrote:
I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
and that if they dual licensed the code, it could be used by the entire
free software community, not just the hip Linux crowd and
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Jason Thorpe wrote:
I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
and that if they dual licensed the code, it could be used by the entire
free software community, not just the hip Linux crowd and also mentioned
that a great many in the
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Kris Kennaway k...@hub.freebsd.org wrote:
So, if they were to simply put a BSD license on the code, then everyone
would be happy, and there wouldn't be any of the dual-license confusion.
Unfortunately, by BSD-licensing the XFS code, SGI would
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 19:49:10 -0400 (EDT)
James Howard howar...@wam.umd.edu wrote:
I did, they have a feedback form I filled out yesterday. I mentioned that
and that if they dual licensed the code, it could be used by the entire
free software community, not just the hip Linux crowd
Tony Finch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kenny Drobnack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may be a stupid question, but what's to keep from putting xfs in
FreeBSD? Is there something in the licenses that says you can't use
GPL'ed software and software under the BSD License together?
Yes. The BSD
On 12 Aug 1999 11:01:06 +0200
Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This prevents you from relicensing BSD software under the GPL. It does
not prevent you from selling an OS that has both BSD and GPL bits, as
long as the GPL bits come with full source.
If you have an executable
Jason Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 12 Aug 1999 11:01:06 +0200 Dag-Erling Smorgrav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This prevents you from relicensing BSD software under the GPL. It does
not prevent you from selling an OS that has both BSD and GPL bits, as
long as the GPL bits come with
Tony Finch d...@dotat.at writes:
Kenny Drobnack kdrob...@mission.mvnc.edu wrote:
This may be a stupid question, but what's to keep from putting xfs in
FreeBSD? Is there something in the licenses that says you can't use
GPL'ed software and software under the BSD License together?
Yes. The
On 12 Aug 1999 11:01:06 +0200
Dag-Erling Smorgrav d...@flood.ping.uio.no wrote:
This prevents you from relicensing BSD software under the GPL. It does
not prevent you from selling an OS that has both BSD and GPL bits, as
long as the GPL bits come with full source.
If you have an
Jason Thorpe thor...@nas.nasa.gov writes:
On 12 Aug 1999 11:01:06 +0200 Dag-Erling Smorgrav d...@flood.ping.uio.no
wrote:
This prevents you from relicensing BSD software under the GPL. It does
not prevent you from selling an OS that has both BSD and GPL bits, as
long as the GPL bits
This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
would support incorporation into FreeBSD.
good luck, the SGI crowd are very Linux-oriented.
--mark.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
This may be a stupid question, but what's to keep from putting xfs in
FreeBSD? Is there something in the licenses that says you can't use
GPL'ed software and software under the BSD License together?
This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
would support
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kenny Drobnack
writes:
: This may be a stupid question, but what's to keep from putting xfs in
: FreeBSD? Is there something in the licenses that says you can't use
: GPL'ed software and software under the BSD License together?
The BSD license allows binary only
Kenny Drobnack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This may be a stupid question, but what's to keep from putting xfs in
FreeBSD? Is there something in the licenses that says you can't use
GPL'ed software and software under the BSD License together?
Yes. The BSD licence requirement for acknowledging UCB
This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
would support incorporation into FreeBSD.
good luck, the SGI crowd are very Linux-oriented.
--mark.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
This may be a stupid question, but what's to keep from putting xfs in
FreeBSD? Is there something in the licenses that says you can't use
GPL'ed software and software under the BSD License together?
This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
would support
In message pine.gso.3.96.990811124754.24208a-100...@mission.mvnc.edu Kenny
Drobnack writes:
: This may be a stupid question, but what's to keep from putting xfs in
: FreeBSD? Is there something in the licenses that says you can't use
: GPL'ed software and software under the BSD License together?
Kenny Drobnack kdrob...@mission.mvnc.edu wrote:
This may be a stupid question, but what's to keep from putting xfs in
FreeBSD? Is there something in the licenses that says you can't use
GPL'ed software and software under the BSD License together?
Yes. The BSD licence requirement for
"Alton, Matthew" wrote:
I am currently conducting a thorough study of the VFS subsystem
in preparation for an all-out effort to port SGI's XFS filesystem to
FreeBSD 4.x at such time as SGI gives up the code. Matt Dillon
has written in hackers- that the VFS subsystem is presently not
well
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Chris Csanady wrote:
I don't know, but I came across this at SGI:
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
It looks as though they plan to release it under the GPL. :(
So? It can still be distributed with FreeBSD. How many people are
going to want to modify this code
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Chris Csanady wrote:
I don't know, but I came across this at SGI:
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
It looks as though they plan to release it under the GPL. :(
This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
would support incorporation
Alton, Matthew wrote:
I am currently conducting a thorough study of the VFS subsystem
in preparation for an all-out effort to port SGI's XFS filesystem to
FreeBSD 4.x at such time as SGI gives up the code. Matt Dillon
has written in hackers- that the VFS subsystem is presently not
well
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Chris Csanady wrote:
I don't know, but I came across this at SGI:
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
It looks as though they plan to release it under the GPL. :(
So? It can still be distributed with FreeBSD. How many people are
going to want to modify this code
: 'hack...@freebsd.org'
Subject: Re: BSD XFS Port BSD VFS Rewrite
Alton, Matthew wrote:
I am currently conducting a thorough study of the VFS subsystem
in preparation for an all-out effort to port SGI's XFS filesystem to
FreeBSD 4.x at such time as SGI gives up the code. Matt
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999, Chris Csanady wrote:
I don't know, but I came across this at SGI:
http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/
It looks as though they plan to release it under the GPL. :(
This is why people should start emailing asking for a dual-license that
would support incorporation
101 - 189 of 189 matches
Mail list logo
