Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 16:37:17 +0100 From: Csaba Henk <csaba-ml@creo.hu> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support Message-ID: <20080218153717.GH49155@beastie.creo.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080214182740.GZ64299@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> <70e8236f0802070321n9097d3fy1b39f637b3c2a06@mail.gmail.com> <slrnfqrp6g.i6j.csaba-ml@beastie.creo.hu> <867ihdc34c.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080212190207.GB49155@beastie.creo.hu> <86d4r2540f.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080213165923.GD49155@beastie.creo.hu> <86zlu493ep.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080214101511.GE49155@beastie.creo.hu> <20080214182740.GZ64299@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 05:27:40AM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 11:15:11AM +0100, Csaba Henk wrote: > >yes, why so? FreeBSD has embraced recently a big chunk of CDDL'd code > >without making much fuss about licensing, and for practical purposes, > > If you're talking about either dtrace or ZFS: > 1) The features are highly desirable and no more suitably licenced > alternative is available now or likely to become available in the > near future. It's subjective how desirable something... it might make sense to claim the above statement wrt. FUSE. OTOH, by "absolutely necessary" I tought of something in the category of gcc/sshd/sendmail... Until ZFS becomes the recommended filesystem for fresh FreeBSD installations, I wouldn't put it into that category. > 2) It is not part of the GENERIC system and will remain optional due to > the license. It smells like apples and oranges to me... GENERIC is the name of the default configuration for the _kernel_, isnt'it? Wrt. FUSE, there was no mention of adding code to the kernel under other license than BSD. The LGPL'd/GPL'd bits we discuss all belong to the userspace. > 3) In the case of dtrace, licensing issues have delayed its implementation > by at least a year. Well again, in case of FUSE, the userspace parts were not reimplemented, they just needed some porting. The kernel module had no technical problems due to licensing issues: it was written from scratch under a BSD license (which in turn was first of all a purely technical constraint due to the differences between the BSD and the Linux VFS), except for the header fuse_kernel.h which was relicensed under a GPL/BSD dual license by courtesy of Miklos Szeredi. Regards, Csaba
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080218153717.GH49155>