Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 23:23:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: jar@integratus.com (Jack Rusher) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), sam@errno.com (Sam Leffler), zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu (Zhiui Zhang), freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Design a journalled file system Message-ID: <200102072323.QAA27692@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <3A81C490.598F7EB7@integratus.com> from "Jack Rusher" at Feb 07, 2001 01:56:32 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Unfortunately, this license means that it can not be distributed > > compiled into a FreeBSD kernel, since clause 6 of the GPL will > > specifically prohibit such distribution. > > I have been wondering about this legal issue lately. What is the law > with regards to implementing XFS as a KLM for FreeBSD & shipping the > source in contrib? It won't help people who are trying to make > commercial products with embedded FreeBSD, but it might be useful for > sysadmins. You won't be able to boot from it, unless you compile your own kernel. This was pretty much the Soft Updates status, until recently. The problem with the GPL clause 6 is that it prohibits any additional restrictions, and requiring the distribution of another license, even if it does not otherwise conflict, is a restriction on what can be done with the code. Without that other license, the right granted to you to use the code in question doesn't exist, since it is the license which was the origin of the grant. Like Matt Dillon and Best Internet did with the Soft Updates code, a local administrator could use it, but it could not be distributed in a usable form. Actually, this brings up a seperate sticky legal point, which is how the assets of Best Internet were transferred when it was sold, since I assume that the machines that had Soft Updates on them kept Soft Updates on them. I suppose that the new owners could have rebuilt the kernels on all the machines, getting identical kernels, after first booting to a non-Soft Updates kernel for the transfer of legal posession. Distribution of a binary kernel module would really depend on whether you could get away with treating a kernel as a library, under the GPL allowing the linking of GPL'ed programs against system libraries. You have to wonder if a kernel module is a program or just a program component, with the kernel being the program. BeOS side-steps this for non-boot drivers by running the driver in a user space process, so it's provably a program. Anyway, that's the kind of hoop-jumping that you _could_ do to get around the problem (maybe). I have no idea what the transfer of ownership caluses in the GPL would do if a company were to IPO, for example, or what the concept of "publically held" would mean on that context (since anyone who holds the ownership of the software can demand the source, and the source itself is not legal to distribute, under the conflicting licenses). Not really my problem, though, since I tend to try to avoid just this sort of entanglement. So did IBM, when I was working for them. 8-). [ ... boot MTBF ... ] > Mirror the boot partition with vinum? I'm not sure this works yet. Hardware RAID mirroing certainly would, since it'd have to deal with the BIOS boot device issue. > > I rather suspect that the GPL was intentionally chosen by SGI > > to permit them to jump on the Linux/Open Source bandwagon, > > without exposing them to the risk of a commercial organization > > which competes with SGI being able to benefit from the technology > > This is unquestionably true. I have word from some of the architects > who helped design XFS that this was exactly the reason GPL was chosen > over the BSD license. I had a pretty long discussion with their V.P. of engineering, who made the decision (they have a number of "V.P. of engineering" lying around). He didn't come out and say the same thing, and I really didn't attribute it to that, since it means that any bug fixes are GPL-code derived, and therefore also GPL. That would mean that they really don't expect any useful work to come out of the Linux community, or that they expected people to just sign over rights to anything interesting, which I think would be a bit naieve, to say the least. FYI: Followups set to -chat... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102072323.QAA27692>