Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:50:14 -0500 From: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@thebarn.com> To: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> Cc: Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, Jack Rusher <jar@integratus.com>, Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com>, Zhiui Zhang <zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Design a journalled file system Message-ID: <3A9D8EB6.42C6E7CE@thebarn.com> References: <200102271844.f1RIiE730029@mobile.wemm.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm wrote: > Brad Knowles wrote: > > At 3:46 AM +0000 2/27/01, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > > Because you can't ditribute a FreeBSD kernel with GPL'ed code > > > linked into it legally, due to the GPL disallowing distribution > > > of the code with non-GPL'ed code. > > > > > > Yes, changing the license to the LGPL would fix the problem. > > > > Ahh, okay. I haven't been watching the list very closely the > > last couple of days, and I had somehow come to the mistaken > > conclusion that your statement was made on the basis of technical > > reasons as opposed to license issues, and I just couldn't see how > > there would be technical problems with what you were proposing. > > > > Thanks for the clarification! > > loader(8)'s requirements are so radically different to "real" file system > code that no real code sharing is done. msdos, ufs, ext2fs etc are all > essentially microscopic dumb simple readers. > > There is no way SGI's XFS would ever be linked in, regardless of license. If > it was done, it would be a simple dumb low level reader that was done > from the ground up, just like the rest of the fs stubs in there. ie: > the SGI XFS license is irrelevant. This was my take on the situation also. I had a brief talk with the person primarily responsible for getting XFS license in order. He confirmed and few things... SGI has 0 interest in XFS on BSD, no objections to it but no from a business stand point no arguable benefits. In fact it is becoming less clear if GPL'ing the code for linux has resulting in any gain. In terms of how far the GPL can be applied in regarding kernel modules. The GPL states code "linked" with GPL code must then also fall under the GPL, apparently the process of exporting symbols such that an external modules can reference them does not fall under "linking". I not arguing the point either way this is SGI interpretation of how the GPL applies to the code base. The reason for this interpretation; SGI will have several non open source products for linux which therefore must remain un infected. On a bit of slightly good news he did agree to look at the LGPL and see if it can be adapted to meet SGI requirement and reduce some of the concerns of the BSD fears of GPL infection. As far as a third party copyrights, at this point only one identifiable contribution has been made to the linux code base that may have arguable copyrights. This code deals with extended attributes on the linux side. Small bug fixes are not significant enough to constitute intellectual property and therefore do not have dependable copyrights. (with dependable being the important part, copyrights may be asserted but unless they are dependable they carry no merit). I'm not sure if people are aware of this but a few people (including myself) have started working on the port. If anybody is actually interesting in contributing and necessarily spending all of his/her time playing part time lawyer let me know I will set you up access to the repository. At this point nothing is working but the core code is compiling. Russell Cattelan -- Digital Elves inc. -- Currently on loan to SGI Linux XFS core developer. 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?3A9D8EB6.42C6E7CE>