From: Pat Riehecky riehecky@fnal.gov
I realized the scripts I've been sending in weren't licensed.
So, I've added one to show_possible_srpms.sh.
Perhaps we should talk about getting the rest of the tools under an open source license.
Pat Riehecky (1): Realized this was missing a license, added
show_possible_srpms.sh | 6 ++++++ 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
From: Pat Riehecky riehecky@fnal.gov
--- show_possible_srpms.sh | 6 ++++++ 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/show_possible_srpms.sh b/show_possible_srpms.sh index 3092172..58047de 100755 --- a/show_possible_srpms.sh +++ b/show_possible_srpms.sh @@ -4,6 +4,12 @@ # # Might want to drop this in ~/bin/ and chmod u+x it
+# +# License: GPLv3 +# +# Initial Author: Pat Riehecky riehecky@fnal.gov +# + ##################################################################### usage() { echo '' >&2
On 06/17/2014 12:24 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
From: Pat Riehecky riehecky@fnal.gov
I realized the scripts I've been sending in weren't licensed.
So, I've added one to show_possible_srpms.sh.
Perhaps we should talk about getting the rest of the tools under an open source license.
Pat Riehecky (1): Realized this was missing a license, added
show_possible_srpms.sh | 6 ++++++ 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Mike, what are your thoughts on making return_disttag.sh GPLv3?
Pat
On 06/17/2014 06:24 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
From: Pat Riehecky riehecky@fnal.gov
I realized the scripts I've been sending in weren't licensed.
So, I've added one to show_possible_srpms.sh.
Perhaps we should talk about getting the rest of the tools under an open source license.
Pat Riehecky (1): Realized this was missing a license, added
any specific reason to go with GPLv3 ?
On 06/17/2014 05:58 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 06/17/2014 06:24 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
From: Pat Riehecky riehecky@fnal.gov
I realized the scripts I've been sending in weren't licensed.
So, I've added one to show_possible_srpms.sh.
Perhaps we should talk about getting the rest of the tools under an open source license.
Pat Riehecky (1): Realized this was missing a license, added
any specific reason to go with GPLv3 ?
Not really, just seemed like a workable choice for a pile of scripts.
Pat
Sorry for not replying sooner. I'm find with any reasonable OSI license. The board is needs to decide if we're going to declare a default license for such scripts.
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Pat Riehecky riehecky@fnal.gov wrote:
On 06/17/2014 05:58 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 06/17/2014 06:24 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
From: Pat Riehecky riehecky@fnal.gov
I realized the scripts I've been sending in weren't licensed.
So, I've added one to show_possible_srpms.sh.
Perhaps we should talk about getting the rest of the tools under an open source license.
Pat Riehecky (1): Realized this was missing a license, added
any specific reason to go with GPLv3 ?
Not really, just seemed like a workable choice for a pile of scripts.
Pat
-- Pat Riehecky
Scientific Linux developer http://www.scientificlinux.org/
CentOS-devel mailing list CentOS-devel@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
-
Karanbir Singh -
Mike McLean -
Pat Riehecky