Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2021 13:50:01 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> Cc: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz>, Yuri <yuri@aetern.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Deprecating smbfs(5) and removing it before FreeBSD 14 Message-ID: <CANCZdfo5L8HJ5Vzj1apJMz7njzNrd0_2TQLwbLdYMkcWhAy15g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAPyFy2B5Y8TUESzPvbyCwA7XXtO1rb_rp3w_oMRnOF5p5RvQyg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAPyFy2CJKxMQQKwD3N=MTe-P4KodN77e3YCEh4z0Ssf9sXWEcQ@mail.gmail.com> <6f99f9bc-8831-aefe-4f73-72f50f8f347b@aetern.org> <79402464-f9e6-5f56-645e-cfd49640032e@quip.cz> <YQXPR0101MB0968A28AAE84DF855AF5125CDD8A9@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAPyFy2B5Y8TUESzPvbyCwA7XXtO1rb_rp3w_oMRnOF5p5RvQyg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--0000000000002bee6a05cfbf7c72 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:29 PM Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Nov 2021 at 11:56, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > > > > Did they stick APSLs on the files? (If so, I think it could still be ok, > since the APSL > > is a lot like the CDDL. However, I'm not sure if the APSL has ever been > blessed > > by FreeBSD as of yet?) > > I had a quick look at the Illumos kernel files and it appears each > file is licensed under only one of 4-clause BSD, APSL, or CDDL, > depending on where it originated. > > Files from Boris Popov's original FreeBSD implementation have the > 4-clause BSD license, followed by something like: > /* > * Copyright (c) 2008, 2010, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights > reserved. > * Portions Copyright (C) 2001 - 2013 Apple Inc. All rights reserved. > * Copyright 2018 Nexenta Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. > */ > > There are 28 BSD-licensed kernel files, 5 APSL, and 13 CDDL. I think > that having an smbfs kernel module in the tree using a combination of > those licenses is fine. (This isn't on behalf of core@ and of course > due diligence needs to be done, but from a high level it seems > reasonable.) > Yea, I took a quick look and came to a similar conclusion: this code base is likely fine for inclusion from a license perspective, but would take some doing to get it working on FreeBSD robustly for all the reasons that Rick delved into far better than I can... Warner --0000000000002bee6a05cfbf7c72--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfo5L8HJ5Vzj1apJMz7njzNrd0_2TQLwbLdYMkcWhAy15g>