[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ^New FSs in 3.4?
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: ^New FSs in 3.4?
- From: Chuck Yerkes <chuck+obsd_(_at_)_2003_(_dot_)_snew_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 20:22:51 -0400
- Mail-followup-to: Chuck Yerkes <chuck+obsd_(_at_)_2003_(_dot_)_snew_(_dot_)_com>, misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
Quoting Andrew M Hoerter (amh_(_at_)_pobox_(_dot_)_com):
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Brad wrote:
> > JFS, Reiser, and XFS cannot be added due to their unacceptable licenses.
> I've often heard it said that isolating GPL'ed code into loadable modules
> which are added to the kernel at runtime would sidestep this licensing
> issue. IANAL, so I don't know the legal basis for this theory; is it
> deemed to be an unacceptable risk due to uncertain interpretation of the
> GPL? Or is it explicitly not permitted by the license?
I'm just repeating what I've seen here over and over:
New GPL code will not be added.
Sidestepping and working around are not the goal.
Now, should YOU wish to make a port that finds and builds
the file system you want as an LKM, then go nuts. Many
people might use it.
> I'm particularly disappointed with SGI for not choosing a better license
> for XFS, but I guess something is better than nothing.
Oh, I think this makes sense from their perspective - it keeps
Sun from sliding it into Solaris without opening up a lot of
OS code to get it in.