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 at 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 at 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 at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140619/dd638376/attachment-0007.html>