Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:51:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Tani Hosokawa <unknown@riverstyx.net> To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net>, Morten Seeberg <morten@seeberg.dk>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: SGI Donated Journalised FS Source to Linux Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906141848010.4024-100000@avarice.riverstyx.net> In-Reply-To: <000301beb652$7042c4b0$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, David Schwartz wrote: > > I don't see as how the kernel module would be "stealing" from the > kernel > at all. From a module's perspective, the kernel just has an > API that it > has to conform to. In fact, a kernel module is only > really a highly > specialized form of executable, and I think it would > be inane to suggest > that all Linux executables be GPL'd because they > happen to use various > kernel hooks in order to operate. > > Actually, I won't put words in his mouth, but the usual argument is that a > module is not a 'work', but a part of one. I still don't see how the XFS filesystem and the implementation of the XFS filesystem (both created by SGI for SGI with only SGI's resources) could be considered a derivative of Linux. If the only issue is the bundling of the XFS source code with Linux, then maybe it'll be necessary for people to download the XFS code separately. I certainly can't see SGI losing all its rights to its own filesystem just because they contributed it to Linux. Nobody wants that to happen. --- tani hosokawa river styx internet To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.10.9906141848010.4024-100000>