Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:48:22 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@ns.caldera.de> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: Dennis Berger <Dennis.Berger@nipsi.de>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, opengfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: Porting a new filesystem to FreeBSD Message-ID: <20010917104822.B23758@caldera.de> In-Reply-To: <3BA5AF53.EE87658F@mindspring.com>; from tlambert2@mindspring.com on Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:07:47AM -0700 References: <3BA4B507.CC70ECD4@nipsi.de> <20010916140843.A21982@xor.obsecurity.org> <3BA52C79.E1E247F5@mindspring.com> <3BA5419F.BF0C3E70@nipsi.de> <3BA555D8.D2C53387@mindspring.com> <20010917084023.A13990@caldera.de> <3BA5AF53.EE87658F@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:07:47AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Sistina has changed the License for GFS 4.2 to some own, propriterary > > one. They chooses to ignore the GPL problematic and thus might get > > into legal problems very soon. > > I don't know what contributions, if any, were made under the > terms of the old license. The problem are not contribution but other GPLed code they use. It gets a little offtopic, so if we want to continue that discussion, we should do it off-list. > The new license requires that you license it from them for > commercial gain, if you ship it in a product, and charge for > it. I think that you could use it in BSD without a problem, > from a first reading of it. You could. Not in a _free_ BSD though. > The license grants for sources, for which there is a royalty > free back-grant to the authors, for derivative works makes > sense -- it makes more sense than the FSF approach, for which > you must assign rights (as with the Sistina license), and for > which your rights are only returned to you under the terms of > the GPL, rather than as a perpetual royalty free rights to do > with your own code as you wish (yes, I know the GPL does not > require that, but it _is_ required for FSF controlled projects, > if you want your code accepted by them). The FSF appropeach is compaplity stupid, and with the minor glibc license change we already see that RMS absuses it. Again, we're not on -advocacy lists. > > We (the OpenGFS project) have spend about ten times as much time > > just to fix the horrible implementation bugs in GFS, not to mention# > > that it also has a lot of design problems. > > I'm only worried about the drivers for the weird hardware, and > the interoperability issues. There is no hardware driver. You just need a scsi subsystem that can handle 16 byte cmds if the host controller can handle it. (And of course a controller that actually implements this specific commands). > Unfortunately, from the web page, it has the GPL issues which will > preclude using it as a boot FS, or shipping a CDROM which would > install to it as the root FS type, by way of user selection > (preferred) or by default (annoying to commercial users). At least > I can actually use the code... The first yes, the second not. I didn't suggest that you use the code (once we're done with cleaning it up it won't be the same anyway), but implement a new kernel part, sharing the format and protocol with OpenGFS (and current Sistina GFS, but I suspect they will change their format as often as the LVM one). As you mentioned above that you write almost asleep it shouldn't be too difficult :) Christoph -- Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade. 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?20010917104822.B23758>