| 1 |
On Sunday 10 April 2005 11:35 pm, Greg KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:30:29PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote: |
| 3 |
> > A while back, we had to move the gentoo kernel patches out of the Gentoo |
| 4 |
> > CVS because we realised it conflicted with the old copyright assignment |
| 5 |
> > form: I have signed an agreement saying that everything I put in gentoo |
| 6 |
> > cvs will be copyrighted to Gentoo. That obviously isn't the case for |
| 7 |
> > kernel patches that I didn't write. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > We moved the kernel patches into a bitkeeper repo, and they've been there |
| 10 |
> > for a while. However, this might be clashing with the social contract, |
| 11 |
> > and costless BK is going away, so its time to move again. I'd love to |
| 12 |
> > host these in a Gentoo repo, preferably SVN, but would need to get that |
| 13 |
> > agreement revoked for me and the other kernel developers. Who do I need |
| 14 |
> > to speak to? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Thanks for bringing this up, I was going to do so this week. I can get |
| 17 |
> the cvs data out of the bk tree, if we want to move it anywhere else, so |
| 18 |
> we will not loose the history (if that's an issue.) But we need to get |
| 19 |
> moved off of bkbits.net as soon as possible, |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> and the gentoo server is |
| 22 |
> not a current solution :( |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
could you be please more specific? I mean. why isn't it a current solution? |
| 25 |
because SVN isn't right in place or because of the copyright problems still |
| 26 |
around or ...? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
thanks, |
| 29 |
Christian Parpart. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt |
| 33 |
23:42:51 up 18 days, 12:49, 2 users, load average: 0.44, 0.69, 0.75 |
Archives