Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 21:40:36 +0300 From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: hiten@uk.FreeBSD.org, Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org>, Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>, Josh MacDonald <jmacd@CS.Berkeley.EDU>, Parity Error <bootup@mail.ru>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.org, reiserfs-dev@namesys.com Subject: Re: [reiserfs-dev]i Re: metadata update durability ordering/soft updates Message-ID: <3C9E1DA4.1090703@namesys.com> References: <20020318174641.A1153@hpdi.ath.cx> <3C9676B4.49A76589@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote: >Hiten Pandya wrote: > >>I don't understand one thing though, what are we doing in the case of >>Ext2FS, which is supported in FreeBSD. As far as I know, the Ext2FS >>version of FreeBSD has also got some GPL'ed bits? The Ext2FS is >>supplied as a source filesystem on FreeBSD CD-ROMs and people are >>allowed to sell them... >> > >It's supplied as source code only, not compiled into the kernel >byt the FreeBSD project, and therefore not impacting the FreeBSD >license. See /usr/src/sys/gnu/ext2fs/COPYRIGHT.INFO: > >| Most of the files in this directory are written by Godmar Back or modified >| by him using the CSRG sources. Those files are covered by the Berkeley-style >| copyright. However the following files are covered by GPL. Since the policy >| of the FreeBSD project is to keep the files with the more restrictive >| copyright in the gnu tree and it is a good idea to keep the filesystem code >| all together, the EXT2FS in its entirety resides under the gnu tree. Note >| that only the files below are under the GPL. In the eventuality that these >| files are redesigned or rewritten, this tree can be moved back into the less >| restrictive FreeBSD tree. > > >>Wouldn't this be the same thing in the case of a GPL'ed ReiserFS, >>XFS or any other GPL'ed filesystem or code? >> > >Yes. > >It can not be distributed compiled into a kernel distributed >on CDROM, legally, because of the license conflict, but it >can be used in an after-market fashion by an end user. > >What that basically means is that you have to install it on >another FS type without that restriction before you are >able to use the ReiserFS, XFS, OpenGFS, or your own JFS >port-in-progress. > >Since doing this is an incredible pain, and the benefits >you get from doing it are most often not worth the pain, >most people don't do it. > >Also, since it's not on the CDROM, it's unlikely to ever >become the default root FS, in any case. Even if you >wanted to locally roll your own CDROM for this, you >would have to modify the boot loader code to be able >to read XFS or whatever FS's in order to load the third >stage boot loader, kernel, and kernel modules, etc.. >That's basically a read-write port *plus* a read-only >port of the code, which makes it about 1.75 times as much >work as just doing the kernel port (it used to be only >about 1.5 times, but now the boot code has to be able to >get files out of subdirectories because of the reorganized >kernel and module code). > >-- Terry > > I think you guys are violating the GPL on ext2fs (assuming you are correct that the UCB 4 part license violates the GPL --- I haven't read that license). Hans 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?3C9E1DA4.1090703>