Subject: Re: Quick Q's about 4.4 vs 4.3, fs code
To: Eric S. Hvozda <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
Date: 05/14/1996 12:45:30
On Tue, 14 May 96 15:00:12 -0400
"Eric S. Hvozda" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Also, if I ported ext2fs filesystem driver (that's a big if) from FreeBSD,
> > it would not go in the development tree because it is GPLed, right?
> Probably, but I'd bet the OpenBSD folks would be interested in it ;-)
Make no mistake, NetBSD folks are interested in an ext2fs, as well.
However, for it to go into the tree, the licencing would have to be non-GPL.
...now, if you were to make ext2fs an LKM, it would be possible to
distribute it separately from the rest of the kernel, and we could avoid
the GPL licencing nightmare. (Yes, some will argue that LKMs should not
be optional, but IMO, if you want ext2fs, you'll just have to cope with
...or, maybe you could talk to the Linux/ext2fs people, and work out some
sort of cooperation, licencing-wise.
...or, you could go into turbo-hacking mode and re-implement the GPL'd
portions of ext2fs, and place the new code under acceptable licencing.
This requires more coffee and Thai food than the other options.
There are all sorts of possiblities. The point is, explore all avenues
before assuming that "it would not go in the development tree".
Heh, it just occurred to me that there would be just a weensy bit of
irony in putting the GPL in the OpenBSD kernel...
----save the ancient forests - http://www.bayarea.net/~thorpej/forest/----
Jason R. Thorpe email@example.com
NASA Ames Research Center Home: 408.866.1912
NAS: M/S 258-6 Work: 415.604.0935
Moffett Field, CA 94035 Pager: 415.428.6939