On 14/07/2016 17:48, "Ian Jackson" wrote:
>Lars Kurth writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI builder re-licensing"):
>> I think we should pick a specific version, because the COPYING file in
>>xen.git states - although not very clearly - to pick a specific license
&g
Lars Kurth writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI builder re-licensing"):
> I think we should pick a specific version, because the COPYING file in
> xen.git states - although not very clearly - to pick a specific license with
> a specific version. Given that libxc/libxl is intended
> On 13 Jul 2016, at 19:19, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
> On 07/13/2016 10:30 AM, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>
>>
>>> OTOH, we can at least
>>> review the patch first here on xen-devel without bothering people from
>>> that list with revisions. So yes, I will.
>
>
> Which LGPL version are we using?
>
On 07/13/2016 10:30 AM, Lars Kurth wrote:
>
> On 13/07/2016 15:22, "Boris Ostrovsky" wrote:
>
>> On 07/13/2016 09:21 AM, Lars Kurth wrote:
>>> Boris,
>>>
>>> I can't remember how we managed this process the last time round (see
>>> for https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9172431/), but in that case
On 13/07/2016 15:22, "Boris Ostrovsky" wrote:
>On 07/13/2016 09:21 AM, Lars Kurth wrote:
>> Boris,
>>
>> I can't remember how we managed this process the last time round (see
>>for https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9172431/), but in that case we
>>already had a patch. As far as I can see, we d
On 07/13/2016 09:21 AM, Lars Kurth wrote:
> Boris,
>
> I can't remember how we managed this process the last time round (see for
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9172431/), but in that case we already had
> a patch. As far as I can see, we don't have the complete patch yet.
>
> Thus, the ques
Boris,
I can't remember how we managed this process the last time round (see for
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9172431/), but in that case we already had a
patch. As far as I can see, we don't have the complete patch yet.
Thus, the question I would have to you is whether you want to prepar
Boris Ostrovsky writes ("[Xen-devel] ACPI builder re-licensing"):
> Who needs to be notified
> ===
NB that what is required is not notification, but permission.
> which indicated major contributions (and therefore a required ack) from
> Citrix/Xensource, Suse/Novell, Oracle/Sun, Intel
