linux-kernel - Re: OCFS2 1.6.0 for mainline?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 15 Oct 2011 17:25:35 -0400
From:	Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:	Kyle Moffett <kyle@...fetthome.net>, mfasheh@...e.com,
	jlbec@...lplan.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	license-violation@...-violations.org
Subject: Re: OCFS2 1.6.0 for mainline?

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 23:12:44 +0200, Richard Weinberger said:
> Am 15.10.2011 23:03, schrieb Kyle Moffett:
> > If someone who has a copy of Oracle's "Unbreakable Linux" can get
> > ahold of the sources, please put them in GIT somewhere for the rest of
> > us to access; it *is* GPLed software after all.  Otherwise, please
> > distribute the binaries to the rest of us and we will obtain the
> > sources on our own.  I can't find any published information on their
> > website about how to obtain the sources, so someone will have to
> > contact them directly.

Remember that Oracle only has an obligation to give source to the people *they*
give binaries to.  If you get binaries from an Oracle customer, you'll have to
hit that customer up for the corresponding source.

> I found this src.rpm:
> http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL6/1/base/x86_64/kernel-ue=
> k-2.6.32-100.34.1.el6uek.src.rpm
> 
> linux-2.6.32/fs/ocfs2 contains OCFS2 1.6.3.
> 
> Mark, Joel, can you please port this "release" to mainline?

I'll bite.. what's an acceptable Signed-Off-By: chain if somebody is pushing
somebody else's GPL'ed code upstream?  I seem to remember some maintainers
being a tad prickly about this case in the past?


Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped