From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Dec 13 23:50:47 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from lists.blarg.net (lists.blarg.net [206.124.128.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3843837B42B; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:50:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from thig.blarg.net (thig.blarg.net [206.124.128.18]) by lists.blarg.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8DDBEA5; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:50:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([206.124.139.115]) by thig.blarg.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA06819; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:50:39 -0800 Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.3) id fBE7ncY19925; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:49:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from swear@blarg.net) To: Greg Lehey Cc: chat@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: IBM's intentions with JFS (was: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD)) References: <3C186EA5.4EA87656@mindspring.com> <20011213093555.76629.qmail@web21107.mail.yahoo.com> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <1id71idej9.71i@localhost.localdomain> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <20011213051012.Y56723-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <20011214122837.O3448@monorchid.lemis.com> From: swear@blarg.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: 13 Dec 2001 23:49:37 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20011214122837.O3448@monorchid.lemis.com> Message-ID: Lines: 67 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Greg Lehey writes: > 1. IBM has released JFS2 as open source. You can do whatever the > license allows with it, including unrestricted commercial use. But in the next item, you say why IBM restricts one commercial use. :-< > 2. IBM chose the GPL rather than the BSD license because the BSD > license would allow competitors to take the code and use it as the > basis of one of *their* commercial, closed-source solutions. IBM > does not want this. Right. The Basic Instinct of all selfish interests. OK, in it's place. > 3. There are no other restrictions on its use. There are several (eg, splash screen), but none as important to most. > 4. It is possible to port JFS2 to FreeBSD without violating any > license, either via loophole or otherwise. > > In this connection, I would like to point out an issue with the > LGPL which I personally think is sailing close to the wind: I > can't see any real license distinction between linking GPL'd code > into the kernel and loading the module either during the boot or > afterwards. In the first case, the code is statically linked, in > the latter it's dynamically linked. In each case, the result is > the same. But the result isn't at issue; copyright law and the GPL contract don't care about results. As GPLers are fond of repeating, the GPL is only about licencing copyrights. The GPL allows you to do whatever you want (except re-publishing derivatives) with GPL code which you already own. In fact, they claim that you don't even need the GPL to do that (except re-publishing anything). The problem comes when trying to publish (copy) GPLed code, especially in the form of a derivative. (Well, there is a theory some would like to believe that none of that matters so that one can be publishing a derivative which consist wholly of one's own work and none of the original code. I have to admit that this theory seems to hold for books and movies, but few have much confidence on how courts will apply this to software.) > It's nice to plan your time, but why specifically September 2002? I suspected it had to do with being ready for FreeBSD 5.0. > No, you misunderstand. See above: the intention was to prevent > competitors incorporating IBM code in their proprietary products. You > can't prevent commercial use of GPL software. Again, the GPL prevents some commercial use. For another example, you can't charge for the license. Also, you misuse the term "prorietary" above. "Proprietary", in discussions of intellectual property, means "not in the public domain". When you mean "closed source", say "closed source", please. > The loader might have to be GPL'd. If the loader, then the kernel too. The working theory would be that the portions of the disk which holds the loader, kernel, and JFS module are just a very simple filesystem holding a BSD loader and OS and a GPL module which is dynamically linked after booting the OS. That sort of thing is done every time you run FreeBSD's (GNU) "tar", in my view and the GPL allows it. But a court might see it differently after hearing it explained by IBM's or the FSF's lawyers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message