Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 07:13:32 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: riel@conectiva.com.br (Rik van Riel) Cc: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), dcs@newsguy.com (Daniel C. Sobral), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, jar@integratus.com (Jack Rusher), sam@errno.com (Sam Leffler), zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu (Zhiui Zhang), freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Design a journalled file system Message-ID: <200102280713.AAA18761@usr05.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0102271739130.5502-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva> from "Rik van Riel" at Feb 27, 2001 05:41:43 PM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> 3. however, improvements to the code will be available to > everbody; nobody will be able to take away IBM's market > using an improved version of their product -- IBM itself > will also have the improved code (different from BSD) If JFS improvents are created, they are under the GPL, since they are a derivative work of code under that license, and thus IBM can not roll them back into OS/2, unless they release OS/2 under GPL. The same for XFS, SGI, and IRIX. Neither of these are possible, since, among other vendors, both OSs contain code licensed from Microsoft. Believe me, they are not expecting contributions from the community, other than bug fixes and porting. If the license were friendly to commercial use on either one of them, then it would be only a matter of time before a BSD using company paid a professional programmer to do something more than bug fixes and porting work. Most likely, the code would be released back out to offload maintenance, since it wouldn't constitute a huge intellectual property investment. I made these arguments to vice presidents of engineering in both companies. The only reason the code was released was marketing climbing onto the Linux bandwagon. > Can you really blame them for chosing this option ? Yes. As a stockholder, I can. The MPL would have been a much better commercial choice, since it would have given the company the right to roll changes back into its commercial product, instead of having to recreate them to avoid back-contamination. As a BSD user, the LGPL would have been a better choice. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?200102280713.AAA18761>