Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:59:23 +0100 From: Csaba Henk <csaba-ml@creo.hu> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@des.no> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support Message-ID: <20080213165923.GD49155@beastie.creo.hu> In-Reply-To: <86d4r2540f.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <3bbf2fe10802061700p253e68b8s704deb3e5e4ad086@mail.gmail.com> <70e8236f0802070321n9097d3fy1b39f637b3c2a06@mail.gmail.com> <slrnfqrp6g.i6j.csaba-ml@beastie.creo.hu> <867ihdc34c.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080212190207.GB49155@beastie.creo.hu> <86d4r2540f.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:11:28PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > Csaba Henk <csaba-ml@creo.hu> writes: > > So I think: fuse4bsd (ie, the kld + the mount util) + libfolly + sysctl > > fs could go to base under BSD license. It also might make sense to rebase > > ntfs-3g atop of folly -- although it won't help ntfs-3g being GPL'd. > > That doesn't matter; ntfs-3g can still be a port. > > What does matter is that if libfolly exports the same API as libfuse, we > can have a complete BSD-licensed FUSE implementation in the base system, > with minimal effort required to port FUSE-based file systems. No, it's a different API. I don't see it would have much importance to clone the libfuse API, because: - If FreeBSD wants a filesystem for its own internal purposes (like a filesytem interface to sysctls) it can use folly. - The huge majority of FUSE based filesystems in common use are GPL licensed anyway, and given this, I don't see the gain of having them backed with a BSD licensed library instead of a LGPL'd one. And they are as fine in ports as ntfs-3g is. Csaba
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080213165923.GD49155>