[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: JFS

On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 06:14:58AM +0000, Jack J. Woehr wrote:
> In the case of IBM's GPL'e Journalling File System, I can see the GPL's
> appeal. It allows IBM to release their code and keep, effectively, a bit more
> control over it, preventing it from being modifed, re-issued closed by their
> competitors (accompanied by an ironic tip of the hat to IBM) and used to
> compete with them.

This is not a definition of _free_ by any standard... except the commercial
one (like, ok, you can have it for free, but look, there are strings
attached).

Besides, it doesn't prevent competitors to issue enhanced versions, it just
gives a way for IBM to retrieve the source code to the enhanced versions, and
reuse it.

And even THEN, it does NOT work. There is nothing that would prevent the
competitors from issuing a thoroughly obfuscated version of that file-system,
using `new' syscalls that IBM does happen not to have, or some new interface.
Then IBM is hosed... unless they reverse-engineer the `source code' and find
the man-power to reimplement the stuff.

Or maybe, just maybe, the GPL doesn't make sense for part of a project, like
it should infect the whole OS in such a case to make any sense ?


Really, you wouldn't be much worse if you issued the code under a BSD-like
license. If IBM really thinks of the GPL as a way to retain control, it had
better find a better license to further its aims...

> So both seem to have their place in the bazaar.

There's a bazaar near the corner of my street. That's where you barter for
hours to buy nice exotic things that you don't know how to use, or break after
the first use...
-- 
	Marc Espie		
|anime, sf, juggling, unicycle, acrobatics, comics...
|AmigaOS, OpenBSD, C++, perl, Icon, PostScript...
| `real programmers don't die, they just get out of beta'