Subject: Re: Quick Q's about 4.4 vs 4.3, fs code
To: Eric S. Hvozda <>
From: Jason Thorpe <>
List: tech-kern
Date: 05/14/1996 12:45:30
On Tue, 14 May 96 15:00:12 -0400 
 "Eric S. Hvozda" <> 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., 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 
LKMs :-)

...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 -
Jason R. Thorpe                             
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