From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Jun 14 3:46:41 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from avarice.riverstyx.net (hq-port-97.harbour-dhcp-pool.infinetgroup.com [207.23.37.97]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77F914DB1 for ; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 03:46:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from unknown@riverstyx.net) Received: from avarice (avarice [207.23.37.97]) by avarice.riverstyx.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA04359; Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:46:13 -0700 Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 18:46:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Tani Hosokawa To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Cc: David Schwartz , David Kelly , Morten Seeberg , freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SGI Donated Journalised FS Source to Linux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On 14 Jun 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > Tani Hosokawa writes: > > What Dag > Dag-Erling, if you please. Ok. > > is thinking of, I assume, is the clause in the GPL that states > > that if a GPL'd component is included (bundled) with another product, the > > latter product must be GPL'd. It doesn't work in reverse, and I don't see > > the situation being the Linux kernel being bundled as part of the XFS > > package. > > No. Read the GPL, and read what RMS writes about it. Plugins and > loadable modules are derivative work, and must be under GPL. > > The specific example RMS used was that of a non-GPL GIMP plugin (which > he claims violates the GPL, under which GIMP is ditributed). He also > stated that the reverse (a GPL plugin to a commercial product, e.g. > Adobe PhotoShop) would violate the GPL. That's silly. XFS isn't a derivative work of Linux. They're two separate things. That's like claiming Pepsi is a derivative work of a ceramic cup that it happens to be in. The fact that it's in a plugin format is just glue to hold the two together in a convenient manner -- it could be done as in userland, as userfs has already proven, but an LKM is far more efficient. Regardless what RMS may think, that kind of thing just won't hold up. RMS is a bit of a twit in many issues. XFS is demonstrably a separate discrete product. just like any other kind of loadable software. Besides, the only people who could put a case together are the authors, of whom there is one copyright holder (Linus Torvalds) and I'm sure they could get a signed agreement stating he would sue them for not GPL'ing it. --- tani hosokawa river styx internet To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message