Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2019 09:07:19 -0800 From: Matthew Macy <mmacy@freebsd.org> To: rgrimes@freebsd.org Cc: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org>, "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org>, Shawn Webb <shawn.webb@hardenedbsd.org>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r344487 - in head/sys: conf gnu/gcov Message-ID: <CAPrugNoBxcdn1OA3aBNJ-mawDqeWea9d_TTHKuYvE7h=fjpheg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201902261627.x1QGRefq046574@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <20190226154535.q32nwf6xyupexkta@mutt-hbsd> <201902261627.x1QGRefq046574@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This has zero impact on the licensing disposition of the kernel as distributed as it is only used for test kernels. Tests compiled with coverage instrumentation run much slower than even debug, one would never ship this. You are very much in the minority being more concerned with ideological purity than minimizing the decline in relevance of FreeBSD, much less striving to increase its relevance. On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 08:27 Rodney W. Grimes < freebsd@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 06:18:42PM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > > > The modest increase in activation energy for that task seems worth > it > > > > > for the short-term gains of reduced integration cost (this code > will > > > > > greatly improve our ZFS-on-Linux test coverage.) > > > > > > > > > > Rod rightly points out that we haven't accepted SPDX tags alone as > > > > > license statements. The standard GPL v2.0 boiler plate should be > added > > > > > to this file along side the tag. > > > > > > > > I've copied the full copyright attribution that is in the > > > > corresponding files on Linux. Is there some reason why FreeBSD > > > > requires the files to be inflated with the full license text where > the > > > > original lacks it? > > > > > > I think for a few reasons, I doubt you copied the whole distribution > > > that this file came from, as I am sure that distribution included > > > a LICENSE file. Second if you actually read the GPL v2 documentation > > > and follow what it says it says you must do this, just because some > > > one else does not follow the rules of what the GPL v2 says does not > > > give us to knowingling not do it. Third this is a particular > dangerious > > > area for BSD to be mixing a GPL code with its kernel, to my knowlege > > > we have never had any gpl code in the kernel, no have we ever > > > allowed it, but thats a seperate argument, that should be made. > > > > Would the arm64 DTS/DTB files count as "GPL code in the kernel?" > > > > I, too, would like less GPL in project, both in userland in kernel. > > But, I can understand the desire for gcov. Note that I'm not > > advocating either way that FreeBSD perform an action. ;) > > Didnt we just remove an inbase, compiling BSD licensed chunk of > code called DRM and move it to ports. So if that was possible > this should be very rapidly applied here and this issue goes away. > > I am still shaking my head over this one. Yes, there is some > expediance to this. Also could it not live on a project > branch? Like.. um.. the ZoL project branch? > > > Thanks, > > Shawn Webb > > -- > Rod Grimes > rgrimes@freebsd.org >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPrugNoBxcdn1OA3aBNJ-mawDqeWea9d_TTHKuYvE7h=fjpheg>