> On Oct 18, 2015, at 6:10 AM, Gavin Panella wrote:
>
> On 16 October 2015 at 17:50, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
> [...]
>> Canonical's IP policy is weird, and it is not clear to me that a patch
>> necessarily has to be MIT licensed to be accepted into Ubuntu's
>> Twisted, since Ubuntu itself is a c
Hi,
I saw that the osuosl-osx10.6 slave no longer has attached builders.
Is that OK?
If yes, then do we still need this slave?
If we no longer need it maybe we should announce the guy from OSUOSL
to free up this system and remove it from our buildmaster.
Cheers,
--
Adi Roiban
___
On 16 October 2015 at 17:50, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
[...]
> Canonical's IP policy is weird, and it is not clear to me that a patch
> necessarily has to be MIT licensed to be accepted into Ubuntu's
> Twisted, since Ubuntu itself is a commercial work.
Instinctively I would assume that Ubuntu would
