Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 21:30:07 +0100 From: Gilbert Fernandes <gilbert.fernandes@spamcop.net> To: Max Khon <fjoe@samodelkin.net> Cc: arch@freebsd.org, babkin@users.sf.net Subject: [off-topic] NTFS, Apple and GPL vs LGPL (Was : NTFS write support) Message-ID: <20060224213007.6x6dqzo4gw0sw0cg@webmail.spamcop.net> In-Reply-To: <20060224193521.GA24121@samodelkin.net> References: <12424860.1139921265521.JavaMail.root@vms169.mailsrvcs.net> <20060224193521.GA24121@samodelkin.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm pretty sure that Microsoft makes the technical details
> available for NTFS, either from their website or from one of their
> DDKs.
There is a Linux NTFS project at linux-ntfs.org
This is mainly off-topic but while reading a few days ago an article on
Slashdot called " Will MacIntel Kill Apple Open Source Efforts?", I read an
interesting comment about Apple and that NTFS Linux project :
----8>----8>----8>----8>----8>----8>----8>
Last July, Apple asked [sourceforge.net] {http://linux-ntfs.org/} Anton
Altaparmakov, lead developer of the Linux-NTFS [linux-ntfs.org] project, to
dual license the Linux-NTFS driver under the APL so that the Intel version
of OS X can read/write files on Windows partitions (presumably for
dual-boot computers). The problem pointed out by other Linux-NTFS
developers is that the APL is not GPL compatible [gnu.org], and any changes
made by Apple to the driver will be unusable in Linux. As one person put it:
This would open up a one-way street: towards OS X and away from GNU/Linux
and any other OS based on the GPL.
Not to mention the Konqueror / Safari fiasco
{http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/07/134222} where Apple
complied to the terms of the LGPL by the skin of their teeth, making it
impossible [kdedevelopers.org] for open source developers to port changes
upstream.
In November, Apple has again tried to hijack Linux-NTFS code, this time by
suggesting {http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=13769046}
that it be licensed under the LGPL. This was promptly rejected by one main
developer, who threatened lawsuits.
----8>----8>----8>----8>----8>----8>----8>
It is thus highly probable that Apple would like to see a BSD-based
implementation of NTFS. They asked twice the GPL-based project to adopt a
dual-licence so they (Apple) would be able to integrate this into MacOS X.
Perhaps Apple would agree to give some support for the BSD-licence based
work ?
--
unzip ; strip ; touch ; grep ; find ; finger ; mount ; fsck ; more ; yes ;
fsck ; umount ; sleep
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060224213007.6x6dqzo4gw0sw0cg>