Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:15:11 +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: <20080214101511.GE49155@beastie.creo.hu> In-Reply-To: <86zlu493ep.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> <20080213165923.GD49155@beastie.creo.hu> <86zlu493ep.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 06:23:10PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > My implicit assumption was that it would be much harder to maintain a > FUSE library in ports, since it is so tightly bound to the FUSE kernel > module. So then, just to clean up more implicit principles: also you mean that LGPL'd code can't go to the base system unless absolutely necessary? If yes, why so? FreeBSD has embraced recently a big chunk of CDDL'd code without making much fuss about licensing, and for practical purposes, I don't see much difference between CDDL and LGPL (altough the latter is worded undisputedly sickly :)). Regarding your assumption: I think it's not true. The only thing that the lib and the module have in common is the header fuse_kernel.h which defines the data structures and constants used in the kernel/userspace protocol. This protocol is versioned and the kernel and the daemon negotiate the highest proto version supported by both parties and shall communicate according to that. Csaba
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080214101511.GE49155>